Justice in American Legal System

Justice, a timeless ideal, remains central to the pursuit of fairness in human societies. It is often defined as moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity (Knauerhaze, 2012). In the United States, the justice system handles an enormous volume of cases daily, ranging from minor traffic violations to serious criminal offenses. However, the system's efficiency in processing these cases often raises concerns about its ability to deliver fair and just outcomes consistently. This essay explores the challenges and nuances of justice within the American legal framework by examining three distinct models: Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice, and Commonsense Justice.

These models strive to ensure fairness and ethical integrity in the system, each offering unique insights into how justice can be understood and applied.

Procedural Justice

Procedural Justice emphasizes the importance of the process by which decisions are made in the justice system. Research indicates that individuals' perceptions of fairness are significantly influenced by their treatment during legal proceedings, regardless of the case's outcome (Bruno, 2004). The four pillars of Procedural Justice—understanding, neutrality, voice, and respect—are crucial to this model. Understanding refers to individuals' knowledge of their legal rights and the procedures they encounter. This element ensures that citizens are not left in the dark about the complexities of the legal process, thereby empowering them to engage more effectively. Neutrality, on the other hand, demands that the justice process applies uniformly to all individuals, irrespective of personal characteristics such as race, gender, or socioeconomic status. This aspect underscores the system's commitment to impartiality and equality.

The element of voice is integral to Procedural Justice, as it allows individuals to share their perspectives and narratives fully. This opportunity for expression fosters a sense of involvement and agency, even when the final decision may not be in their favor. Lastly, respect is fundamental to the model, emphasizing the dignified treatment of all individuals within the legal process. When these elements are consistently applied, they enhance public trust and contribute to a perception of fairness, even in adverse outcomes.

Despite its potential, implementing Procedural Justice uniformly remains a challenge. Factors such as understaffing, budget constraints, and human error can hinder its consistent application. Nonetheless, this approach requires little financial investment and, when executed effectively, can significantly improve public confidence in the justice system.

Distributive Justice

Distributive Justice addresses the perceived fairness of outcomes within the justice system, often referred to as the "relationship lens." John Rawls' seminal work, "A Theory of Justice," provides a framework for understanding how fairness in distribution can be achieved (Rawls, 1971). This model examines how resources, benefits, and burdens are allocated among individuals and groups, striving for an equitable distribution reflective of fairness.

In practice, Distributive Justice might evaluate whether individuals performing similar roles receive comparable compensation or whether societal benefits and responsibilities are shared appropriately. However, Robert Nozick, a critic of Rawls' approach, argues against redistributing property that rightfully belongs to someone else, emphasizing the importance of individual entitlements and ownership (Nozick, 1974).

The complexity of Distributive Justice lies in its requirement to consider not only the current distribution but also the history and legitimacy of resource acquisition. For instance, finding a lost wallet with $500 raises questions about rightful ownership and the ethical return of the money to its owner, illustrating how justice must consider the origins and context of distribution.

Commonsense Justice

Commonsense Justice diverges from the other models by aligning more closely with public perceptions and societal norms. It seeks to bridge the gap between legal codes and the collective conscience of society. This model evaluates the proportionality and reasonableness of legal outcomes, often taking into account the broader context of an individual's actions.

Unlike Procedural and Distributive Justice, Commonsense Justice emphasizes the act itself, acknowledging that average citizens may consider the preceding and subsequent events surrounding a crime. This approach resonates with the intuitive understanding of justice, where the big picture is crucial, and isolated incidents cannot be fully judged without context.

However, the limitation of Commonsense Justice lies in its reliance on subjective interpretations, which can vary widely among individuals. While this model attempts to align legal outcomes with societal values, it can sometimes overlook the intricacies of legal precedent and statutory interpretation.

Conclusion

The multifaceted nature of justice ensures that it remains a constantly evolving and debated concept worldwide. In the United States, the pursuit of fairness and equality continues to challenge the legal system, prompting discussions about the most effective models and approaches. Procedural Justice emerges as a compelling framework due to its emphasis on human dignity and the fair treatment of individuals. By electing leaders who champion these values and by committing ourselves to uphold them, we can strive toward a more just and equitable society. Ultimately, the path to justice is not solely the responsibility of the legal system but a shared journey that requires collective commitment and conscientious effort from all members of society.

Did you like this example?

372

20