https://x.com/travelingflying/status/2043796373645005168?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Justice is an interesting concept.
AI tell us that "Justice is the ethical concept of fairness, impartiality, and giving individuals their due, often upheld by legal systems"
MW tell us that it's "the process or result of using laws to fairly judge cases, redress wrongs, and punish crimes"
Justice in Scripture seems to encompass the notion of getting what is deserved, whether that is reward or punishment.
I tend to think that many of us see justice the same way a child sees fairness. That justice is getting the result that we prefer, sometimes regardless of evidence or facts.
In the video above, a juror from the OJ trial seems to be saying that 90% of the jurors acquitted OJ despite believing that the evidence proved him guilty. I'm having a hard time seeing that as justice.
In the Derek Chauvin trial the jurors were subjected to crowds chanting threats of violence if Chauvin was not convicted. I'm questioning if threatening a jury is conducive to justice.
As we've seen in multiple examples of using race in admissions for higher education ending up putting less qualified students above more qualified students in an attempt to provide justice, this version comes at a cost.
We've watched over the past few years as DAs have increasingly released or not charged people based (apparently) on their race, more and more repeat violent offenders set free to commit more violent crimes, and (especially in the UK, but also in MN) seen child rapists get remarkably light sentences. We've also seen (in Europe) victims of violent crimes get harsher sentences than their victimizer because of things they've said about those who victimized them.
We've seen a proliferation of zones within cities (mostly in Europe) where police will not enforce laws because of the risk to their lives.
Can justice for individuals be achieved through threats of violence intended to produce a specific result regardless of the evidence , ignoring of evidence, or inflicting injustice on others? Doe not justice need to follow the evidence wherever it leads without pressure or threats to disregard the evidence?
Obviously justice does sometimes require force to be administered. If someone is in the act of committing a rape (for example) clearly force or violence used to stop the rape is appropriate. Likewise, the only possible means to bring justice to the victims of Germany and Japan required their military defeat before their leaders could be tried.
https://x.com/johnnyfse/status/2044251199340159297?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Please explain where in this nightmare justice is found?
16 comments:
Too many of the articles I read about crimes and the jury/judges' decisions demonstrate racism is a solid element in the decisions. Disgusting.
I've seen those as well, and will address those when I find solid information.
Craig:
Likewise, the only possible means to bring justice to the victims of Germany and Japan required their military defeat before their leaders could be tried.
1. ONE possible means to bring justice to the victims of Germany/Japan was military defeat, but then the question becomes, are there LIMITS to what is a just or righteous military intervention?
2. IF, in the process of stopping Germany/Japan, other nations or people commit war crimes, themselves, deliberately attacking and killing innocent people, then those who committed war crimes on ALL sides need to be held accountable. IF we're interested in actual justice and not just a brutalist's "might makes right, red in tooth and claw" sort of worldview, which doesn't care about justice, just getting their way.
3. Justice in the Bible:
"Mishpat (מִשְׁפָּ֥ט) is the Hebrew word for justice, appearing over 200 times, frequently focusing on active, restorative justice for the vulnerable. It means giving people their due, treating them equitably, and caring for the "quartet of the vulnerable"—the widow, orphan, immigrant, and poor. Often coupled with tzedakah (righteousness), it represents a foundational, action-oriented social justice."
Biblically, justice is about restoration and returning to the Beloved Community, the realm of God.
In his magisterial work on God’s attributes, Herman Bavinck argues that in the Bible, God’s justice is both retributive and reparative. It not only punishes evildoing, but it restores those who are victims of injustice. Yet interestingly, “God’s remunerative [restorative] justice is far more prominent in Scripture than his retributive justice.” [5] God stands against “perverting the justice due the poor… slaying the innocent and righteous… accepting bribes…. oppressing the alien, the widow, and the orphan…” God “raises them to a position of honor and well-being… [D]oing justice with an eye to the needy becomes an act [also] of grace and mercy.” And therefore, God’s restorative justice “is not, like his anger, opposed to his steadfast love but is closely akin and synonymous with it.” His justice is “simultaneously the manifestation of his grace
https://quarterly.gospelinlife.com/justice-in-the-bible/
While it contains retributive components, God’s justice is
fundamentally a restoring and renewing justice. Knowing
this, the Church is obliged to practice restorative justice
in its own ranks and to summon society to move in the
same direction.
https://ifl.web.baylor.edu/sites/g/files/ecbvkj771/files/2024-04/prisonarticlemarshall.pdf
Craig:
I tend to think that many of us see justice the same way a child sees fairness. That justice is getting the result that we prefer, sometimes regardless of evidence or facts.
Indeed, many of us DO view justice the way a child thinks of it - a rather shallow and self-centered view that says, "He got more than me! That's not right! Punish him!"
But we'd do well to avoid childish, shallow understandings of justice.
1. Name one other. Are there limits, sure. Do you know what that are absolutely, no. I would suggest that in the face of the evil perpetrated by Germany and Japan (Italy was along for the ride, but wasn't driving the bus. I'm not excusing them, but recognizing that they weren't the direct cause.) that total military defeat was the only possible option to bring any level of justice to the victims.
2. That is your opinion, not an indisputable fact. It's also you applying an extremely leftist 21st century worldview retroactively. Prior to WW2 the notion of "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" didn't exist.
I'm not sure what to do with the (mostly) off topic quotes, which I don't necessarily disagree with in theory.
However, I don't think that imposing your notion of "Biblical justice" on a secular society makes any sense.
I'll further note that your "Biblical justice" (really the opinions of a couple of people) cannot fully be realized outside of the final outworking of YHWH's Kingdom. That doesn't mean that we don't make every effort to live out those ideals to the best of our ability, just that our efforts will be imperfect.
Of course that goes back to aspects of the post you chose not to address, regarding using violence or threats of violence to influence court cases, or jury nullification based on race not evidence.
It would be a good idea to avoid the attitude of punishing people by taking from them. To do so would be an injustice, would it not?
I will note that I love that you're talking about ideas on justice! These are conversations that are so important in our world, now and throughout history, including for the biblical authors. And I love reading the biblical witness on themes of justice and how consistent, clear and powerful these teachings are. Consider...
Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.
Isaiah 1
But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Amos 5
When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.
Proverbs 21
Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.
Isaiah 30
Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
Psalm 82
But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Luke 11
The messages we can find are quite clear.
1 WE are invited and expected to do justice
2 The call for justice is consistently about justice for the poor, oppressed, immigrant and otherwise marginalized
3 We are to recognize that justice has winners and losers... that good news for the poor, imprisoned, sick, oppressed can be bad news for the oppressors, the uncaring wealthy, the unwelcoming, etc
4 That justice is an invitation to ALL... it's not that God WANTS to see the oppressors punished, the greedy hoarders to be destroyed... rather, God's wanting restoration to right, just living.
Amen and amen.
https://x.com/johnnyfse/status/2044251199340159297?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
This is just the most recent example of what I mentioned in the original post. Can anyone identify where in this long chain of events any actual justice happened?
I love how committed you are to focusing on out of context proof tests to advance your hunches about justice, than about addressing the specifics of the post.
1. Yes, so?
2. Interesting. Are you suggesting that some do not deserve justice? That seems to contradict some of the verses on "Biblical" justice you missed.
Key Verses
Deuteronomy 1:17: "You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God’s" (NASB).
Deuteronomy 16:19: "You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous" (NASB).
Deuteronomy 10:17: "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe"
3. Interesting, so justice for "the poor" means injustice for the non poor? Are you suggesting that the non poor be punished by taking from them and giving to "the poor"?
4. Yes, but it is also for all and impartial to all. What is the objective standard to measure "right,just living"? When will this restoration take place in all of it's fullness?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/hennepin-county-judge-tosses-out-jurys-guilty-verdict-in-72-million-home-healthcare-fraud-case/ar-AA1R4yY2
Again, please show me how a left wing judge overturning a jury verdict in a fraud case furthers justice in any way?
please show me how a left wing judge overturning a jury verdict in a fraud case furthers justice in any way?
As always, if you have ANY data-driven, expert opinion citing actual concerns about overturned verdicts for any partisan reasons, by all means, present the data.
As a non-legal expert, I'm not swayed by some guy on the internet citing some other guy on X that there's a problem.
It would be easier to take your alleged concerns about legal improprieties if you were as concerned about actual crimes and convictions with the felon you voted for.
What a bizarre take, and indication of your inability to check things for yourself.
https://www.wect.com/2026/04/13/court-appearance-postponed-wilmington-man-charged-with-murder-us-marine/
A 30 second Google search could have gotten you this news story, but you are too lazy and expect to be spoon fed data.
The second is a link to an MSN story. Unless I'm mistaken, MSN stands for Microsoft Network News.
But really, great excuses for not responding.
It would be easier to take your obsession with one misdemeanor magically transformed into multiple felonies (it's not like this hasn't been explained to you multiple times) , if you were even a tiny bit aware of what Leftist DAs and Judges are doing across the country.
Just for grins, explain the justice behind NY literally changing the law and charging Trump under what has been described by Alan Dershowitz as a "novel" legal strategy that has only been used in this one circumstance.
https://katv.com/news/connect-to-congress/interviews/alan-dershowitz-says-trump-indictment-may-be-one-of-the-weakest-cases
I know, I know, Dershowitz isn't enough of an expert for you and he's a right wing maniac as well.
To answer some of your questions, my comment, your question:
1 WE are invited and expected to do justice
1. Yes, so?
Just noting that where SOME people might say, "We (or, "natural man") are wholly incapable of living a just and moral life," that the Biblical authors thought otherwise, and reality points out otherwise. It's a given in the biblical witness that we have the power to use moral reasoning to understand justice (moral reasoning including but not limited to listening to biblical passages). Do you agree?
2 The call for justice is consistently about justice for the poor, oppressed, immigrant and otherwise marginalized
2. Interesting. Are you suggesting that some do not deserve justice?
No, not at all. It's just that when the poor are being oppressed, starved or otherwise maltreated, the rich are invited to join in with justice to stand with the poor and marginalized to end their being marginalized. When the oppressor is invited to (demanded to) quit oppressing, THEY are being included in justice. When they do NOT quit oppressing, then THEY are not included in justice. Do you disagree?
3 We are to recognize that justice has winners and losers... that good news for the poor, imprisoned, sick, oppressed can be bad news for the oppressors, the uncaring wealthy, the unwelcoming, etc
3. Interesting, so justice for "the poor" means injustice for the non poor? Are you suggesting that the non poor be punished by taking from them and giving to "the poor"?
No, not at all. It's just that when the poor are being oppressed, starved or otherwise maltreated, the rich are invited to join in with justice to stand with the poor and marginalized to end their being marginalized. When the oppressor is invited to (demanded to) quit oppressing, THEY are being included in justice. When they do NOT quit oppressing, then THEY are not included in justice. Do you disagree?
Or, as it relates to specifically rich/poor (as in your question), the rich are invited to share their wealth (whatever that might look like) to ease the suffering and injustice towards the poor. We might decide to try to begin to deal with that by having the landed farmers setting aside a portion of their property/produce for the poor to harvest, it might look like greater taxation to offset the oppression of the poor from their poverty or it might look like sharing all things in common. The point would be that it's not a penalty or oppression to invite the rich to share with the poor, it's justice that they're welcomed and invited to take part in.
4 That justice is an invitation to ALL... it's not that God WANTS to see the oppressors punished, the greedy hoarders to be destroyed... rather, God's wanting restoration to right, just living.
4. Yes, but it is also for all and impartial to all. What is the objective standard to measure "right,just living"? When will this restoration take place in all of it's fullness?
We - none of us - HAVE an objective standard to measure right, just living. NONETHELESS, as in point 1, we are expected to understand and strive for it nonetheless, EVEN IF we don't have an objectively proven "right" way to do it. AND, if one attempt turns out to be a failure or less than successful, then we are invited to try to another way to work for justice. And being invited to work for that justice is not an injustice... not at all! Do you think so?
WHEN will we achieve perfect justice? No time so far and no indication that we will achieve the "restoration in all its fulness," perfectly anytime in this world... BUT, reminding you of point 1, we ARE expected to and invited to try to understand and DO justice, nonetheless.
Do you disagree?
Re: your first link about a man charged with murder having a court appearance postponed due to being in the hospital, What a bizarre take. From your story:
"Court officials said during what was supposed to be his time in court that Davy Spencer, 47, is in the hospital and will make his first appearance upon his release."
? So... what's the difficulty? He couldn't make the first appearance due to being in the hospital. Where is the injustice in that? Also, there is no mention of a liberal judge in the story itself.
Is that the best case example for this crazy left wing conspiracy to free prisoners or whatever?
I'm unsure what the Dershowitz story has to do with your post or any points you're making. Trump was charged with actual crimes in an actual legitimate court of law and had a fair trial (bending over backwards to accommodate him) by a jury of his peers and he was found guilty of multiple crimes. That's the reality and you wish to dismiss it because he's your candidate or for partisan reasons or whatever.
I don't see anything about any proven partisan misdeeds in that story.
?
Beyond the general notions of Justice (which I've given a reasonable support for a general way of understanding it), you seemed to be concerned that "We've watched over the past few years as DAs have increasingly released or not charged people based (apparently) on their race, more and more repeat violent offenders set free to commit more violent crimes"... cats and dogs living together, MASS hysteria, etc, etc. And then, when you get around to finally actually citing a news story, there's nothing at all in that story about what concerns you raised.
Wanna try again?
The first link to a news story validates the information that you were bitching about, but were too lazy to find on your own. But keep dodging, it's good exercise. Or ask nicely I'll spoon feed you more information that you could find on your won when I'm not slammed.
Then you're either stupid or ignorant. Dershowitz, legal expert that he is, has repeatedly gone on record that the NY charges were based on an application/misuse of a law that had never been applied that way before. I don't wish to dismiss it, I simply point out (again) the lengths that a partisan DA, in a deep blue city went to to magically transform one misdemeanor into multiple felonies.
I've cited multiple news stories over the past year. The case of Davy Spencer being the most recent.
1. That is quite the hunch.
2. I'm not sure, your gobbledygook didn't really make much sense.
3. The problem with your gleaning example is that it wasn't optional, it was required. Likewise the taxes that pay for the same sorts of things today are not voluntary, they are mandatory. One more in a string of bad analogies.
4. Excellent job. You insist that we must live by and be held accountable to a standard that no one has. How, pray tell, does one know if they are living up to this mythical standard? If the standard is not known by anyone, can it really exist in any meaningful sense? I appreciate your non answers.
Yes. I usually disagree with your hunches.
Post a Comment