# 𝗗𝗼 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗠𝗲𝗿𝗰𝘆�



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

��


----------



## danstavrop (May 10, 2021)

X10E8Y65M56 said:


> ��


Always. Justice is the right thing to do no matter what. Mercy has to do with feelings. Is subjective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JordanAshwin (Dec 1, 2020)

As of right now, justice itself is more unjust than anything. But I suppose it depends on what the person has done. They are both, mercy and justice, completely subjective. Justice is the right thing to do, but who's to say what's the right thing to do is? The right thing to do, when decided subjectively that it is objective, might be the furthest thing from mercy, but will still be justice, which might be what we now think is wrong. So as there is no way to say either is right or wrong, as right or wrong is completely subjective, both mercy and justice are completely the right and wrong things to do, for they both have not just one form. Justice today might not be justice tomorrow and mercy too. It is above all, a vexata quaestio


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Evaluating personality of the whole forum with these threads, eh? Not that I mind, of course.

Justice, as it puts mercy into a perspective, a more global scheme of things. But there is little sense in justice without mercy, as it ends up contributing into "what is reasonable".


----------



## Andy 8184 (May 24, 2021)

Justice all the way. Mercy is unfair to the victims. Except if you are the victim, then you can show all the mercy you want.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

You want justice when you're the victim, unfairly treated, hurt.

You want mercy when you're the perpetrator, at fault, made a mistake.

Who has ever been hurt? Who has never done wrong or made a mistake?


----------



## Summer70 (Feb 27, 2021)

Define what is a fair justice first. (Or justice and mercy alone.) I don’t see how justice and mercy are mutually exclusive, so I didn’t vote.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

I believe that people who have been wronged should be given the power to choose whether they want justice or to show mercy, and I think mercy is the better of the two but it's easier said than done.

If no one in particular was wronged, then the judge or whoever the appropriate authority is would make the choice, and once again I think mercy is the better of the two.

I have a preference for mercy, but no issues with justice either. I think it's more important to empower the wronged party(ies) to make the choice for themselves.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

I came to the conclusion years ago that justice requires a measure of mercy, at least in that it can't be about punishment. It has to be about mitigation, restoration, reformation, and accountability.


----------



## gyozar (Apr 21, 2021)

ENFPathetic said:


> I believe that people who have been wronged should be given the power to choose whether they want justice or to show mercy, and I think mercy is the better of the two but it's easier said than done.
> 
> If no one in particular was wronged, then the judge or whoever the appropriate authority is would make the choice, and once again I think mercy is the better of the two.
> 
> I have a preference for mercy, but no issues with justice either. I think it's more important to empower the wronged party(ies) to make the choice for themselves.


I also agree with u on that, but most people would be in a really bad mental state due to the trauma. humans have trouble making decisions when they're struggling mentally. Plus if they were close, the victim would be more likely to show mercy. Love blinds people. A mother would of course defend her child. As a kid, I hated it when my mother defended me even when I knew I was wrong. Personally, I'd rather face the consequences if I knew I was wrong.

May I ask why u prefer mercy over justice?


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

I don't believe in justice for the sake of _punishing_ the perpetrator. I believe in justice for the sake of trying to keep society orderly and safe. Like if a serial killer brutally kills 20 people, I don't believe in trying to make him suffer, but I believe in removing him from society for other people's protection, peace of mind, and to also set an example that you can't just violate other people in any way you choose. I don't believe in trying to make _anyone_ suffer, regardless of how much they make other people suffer. But granted I still care a lot less about a psychopathic serial killer's well being than I do about most people. Its like certain people start looking a lot less human to me when they do certain things, but I still don't believe in torturing them.


----------



## Fennel (Jan 11, 2017)

As a human being, in ordinary life with ordinary people - Justice.

While both might be considered traits of God, I regard Grace as being directly from God, while Justice can be imitated by people like you and me. Humans can determine what Justice means for them and create laws even if they don't believe in God or subscribe to a religion. You don't even have to be a good person to practice law. But if you practice Grace I'd assume you're a Saint.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

gyozar said:


> I also agree with u on that, but most people would be in a really bad mental state due to the trauma. humans have trouble making decisions when they're struggling mentally. Plus if they were close, the victim would be more likely to show mercy. Love blinds people. A mother would of course defend her child. As a kid, I hated it when my mother defended me even when I knew I was wrong. Personally, I'd rather face the consequences if I knew I was wrong.
> 
> May I ask why u prefer mercy over justice?


I get that what you're saying, but it's still their decision to make. They were the ones who were wronged and they should be given the benefit of the doubt and trusted to make the best decision for themselves.

I don't think children can be held accountable anyway. But I agree with you that blind love doesn't do anyone any good. But for some people, it's difficult not to love blindly. I personally wouldn't hold it against a mother to love her child blindly. It happens in families. Sometimes it's the father who loves blindly and the mother has to take on full responsibility for discipline the children and sometimes it's the opposite. It's rare that both parents neglect discipline/mercy.

I don't think you should have to face any real consequences as a child. You should be disciplined. Childhood is your opportunity to learn from the mistakes you make.

My faith. Allaah says that people who are wronged have a right to fair retribution, but forgiveness is better. There are also many more incentives for forgiveness. And also because mercy is usually the more difficult of the two choices. It's an easy thing to do, but a difficult to choose to do, and the value of an action is dependent on the intent behind it. Empty mercy is more damaging than anything.


----------



## gravityfalls (Jan 1, 2021)

Maybe mercy, don't know if that sounds naive or unfair but if the person deserves it if they have remorse if they can contribute back and be a better person. The person would be studied (like even his brain, to see if they are a dangerous psychopath if so then they should be alienated) supervised, and trained to reintegrate into society and go to the military or space exploration or something dangerous for his life but worthful for society.


Edit: After reading other's posts and thinking for a bit, I think I'll go with Justice, because if criminals are given a chance then they are examples for other criminals that they can get away.


----------



## Andy 8184 (May 24, 2021)

Ock said:


> I don't believe in justice for the sake of _punishing_ the perpetrator. I believe in justice for the sake of trying to keep society orderly and safe. Like if a serial killer brutally kills 20 people, I don't believe in trying to make him suffer, but I believe in removing him from society for other people's protection, peace of mind, and to also set an example that you can't just violate other people in any way you choose. I don't believe in trying to make _anyone_ suffer, regardless of how much they make other people suffer. But granted I still care a lot less about a psychopathic serial killer's well being than I do about most people. Its like certain people start looking a lot less human to me when they do certain things, but I still don't believe in torturing them.


Don't you think that you create a state of extreme unfairness when you let a killer live? Their victim wasn't so lucky. A society where the perpetrators have better lives than their victims is terribly unjust. 

For example in my country, a woman recently threw acid (or something like that) on another woman's face. Her face got completely destroyed and she can't go out in the sunlight without a mask on anymore. She's constantly having surgeries and she is also psychologically not very well. Our laws suck, which means that the woman that threw the acid will be out in three years. Do you think it's fair for her to have a decent life (even if we're absolutely sure that she won't hurt anyone anymore) while her victim suffers every single day? Don't you think it would be more fair if she met the same fate as her victim?

To me at least, by showing mercy, politicians spread the message that it pays to be a criminal, that they aren't capable of protecting or avenging their citizens and that people that actually follow the law are stupid.

Excuse my terrible English.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Andy 8184 said:


> Don't you think that you create a state of extreme unfairness when you let a killer live? Their victim wasn't so lucky. A society where the perpetrators have better lives than their victims is terribly unjust.
> 
> For example in my country, a woman recently threw acid (or something like that) on another woman's face. Her face got completely destroyed and she can't go out in the sunlight without a mask on anymore. She's constantly having surgeries and she is also psychologically not very well. Our laws suck, which means that the woman that threw the acid will be out in three years. Do you think it's fair for her to have a decent life (even if we're absolutely sure that she won't hurt anyone anymore) while her victim suffers every single day? Don't you think it would be more fair if she met the same fate as her victim?
> 
> ...


Well the way I see it is that nothing that is done by the perpetrators is gonna be undone by trying to make them suffer.

But in the case of throwing acid at someone's face and destroying it, I think that lady has proven that she should be locked away for much longer than than three years. Like I mentioned, I think a part of incarceration should be to set examples so that other people can't just be like "Oh, she threw acid at her face and only got three years. I should do that to _so and so_ !"


----------



## Annie S. (Feb 15, 2021)

danstavrop said:


> Always. Justice is the right thing to do no matter what. Mercy has to do with feelings. Is subjective.


That's partly true, but sometimes mercy can be reasonable. If someone steals something from you, and you decide to serve your justice by sending them to prison, they might come out for their revenge, maybe not feeling guilt about what they've done. In other words, they might blame you instead of blaming themselves, wanting to serve their justice.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

X10E8Y65M56 said:


> ��


Why wouldn't justice be swift and merciful?


----------



## NovaVii (May 19, 2021)

X10E8Y65M56 said:


> ��


It depends. I believe that it is best to do whatever is rationally most beneficial for the most amount of people. The “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” mentality is delusional and irrational. I believe that rehabilitative justice is much, much more commonly effective and should be applied wherever “justice” takes place. What even is “mercy”? I believe that whatever increases the most amount of happiness and well-being for the most amount of people is what should be implemented, which is almost always (but not exceptionally) rehabilitation. Retributive justice is traditionally considered the rational approach and “mercy” the “emotional” and “irrational” approach, but the complete opposite is true. Retribution is an emotional and instinctual moral system that’s literally just based on “monkey did bad thing. I hit monkey and it give serotonin”. I don‘t have the link and I’m too lazy to get it rn (xNxP moment), but you people should watch “Justice” by Contrapoints on YouTube. It’s actually an amazing video. Restorative justice is based and retributive justice is cringe. Cope harder, fascists 💀


----------



## Andy 8184 (May 24, 2021)

NovaVii said:


> It depends. I believe that it is best to do whatever is rationally most beneficial for the most amount of people. The “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” mentality is delusional and irrational. I believe that rehabilitative justice is much, much more commonly effective and should be applied wherever “justice” takes place. What even is “mercy”? I believe that whatever increases the most amount of happiness and well-being for the most amount of people is what should be implemented, which is almost always (but not exceptionally) rehabilitation. Retributive justice is traditionally considered the rational approach and “mercy” the “emotional” and “irrational” approach, but the complete opposite is true. Retribution is an emotional and instinctual moral system that’s literally just based on “monkey did bad thing. I hit monkey and it give serotonin”. I don‘t have the link and I’m too lazy to get it rn (xNxP moment), but you people should watch “Justice” by Contrapoints on YouTube. It’s actually an amazing video. Restorative justice is based and retributive justice is cringe. Cope harder, fascists 💀


Utilitarianism sucks.


----------

