Hacker News Reader

Comment by deepsun | Hacker News Reader

The main job of a judicial system is to appear just to people. As long as people think it's just -- everyone is happy. But if it's strictly by the law, but people consider it's unjust -- revolutions happen.

In both cases, lawmakers must adapt the law to reflect what people think is "just". That's why there are jury duty in some countries -- to involve people to the ruling, so they see it's just.

View on HN

Being just (as in the right thing happened) and being legal (as in the judicial system does not object) are 2 totally different things. They overlap, but less than people would like to believe.

I've never met a lawyer who believes that. To a lawyer, justice requires agreement on the laws, rather than individual notions of justice. If the law is unjust, it's up to the lawmaking body to fix that. I hear this from lawyers of all ideologies.

I believe that this is absurd, but I'm not a lawyer.

In Federal courts mandatory minimum sentences were judged to be unconstitutional, as the ability to individualize sentencing was considered a prerogative intrinsic to the role of [Federal] judges. Though, a judge cannot impose a sentence greater than the maximum allowed under law. Federal courts still have sentencing guidelines that are almost always applied, but strictly speaking they're advisory.

More fundamentally, individualized justice is a core principle of common law courts, at least historically speaking. It's also an obscure principle, but you can't fully understand the system without it, including the wide latitude judges often wield in various (albeit usually highly technical) aspects of their job.

  > to appear just to people.

The best way to appear just is to be just.

But I'm not sure what your argument is. It is our duty as citizens to encourage the system to be just. Since there is no concrete mathematical objective definition of justice, well, then... all we can work with is the appearance. So I don't think your insight is so much based on some diabolical deep state thinking but more on the limitations of practicality. Your thesis holds true if everyone is trying their best to be just.

It also involves being able to look the person doing the sentencing in the eye and them telling you their reasons for the ruling to the face; being able to argue and present evidence in front of a neutral arbiter.

Facebook's moderation might well be just but it lacks the accountability and openness and humanity to appear just. (It also isn't just but I'm saying that even if it was, it would not appear so.)

I agree. I say more here[0] and think the inability to face your accusers is not only unconstitutional but inhumane.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46984602

> The main job of a judicial system is to appear just to people.

Agree 100%. This is also the only form of argument in favor of capital punishment that has ever made me stop and think about my stance. I.e. we have capital punishment because without it we may get vigilante justice that is much worse.

Now, whether that's how it would actually play out is a different discussion, but it did make me stop and think for a moment about the purpose of a justice system.

I’ve never heard of vigilante justice against someone already sentenced to prison for life, just because they were sentenced in a place without capital punishment?

(I mean - people get killed in prison sometimes, I suppose, but it’s not really like vigilante justice on the streets is causing a breakdown in society in Australia, say…)

It's probably rather difficult and risky to enact vigilante justice against someone who's in prison.

I think the problem is with places where they don't have life sentences at all, but rather let murderers back out into society after some time. I don't know if vigilante justice is a problem there in reality, but at least I can see it as a possibility: someone might still be angry that you murdered their relative after 20 years and come kill you when you're released.

The reference to vigilante justice may be about killing a suspect before they're imprisoned or even tried, such as when a mob storms the local jail. The theory is, if people believe only death can bring justice, and the state doesn't have the death penalty, then the vigilantes will take matters into their own hands. Ergo, the state should have the death penalty.

Having recently done an in-depth review of arguments for and against the death penalty,[1] I can say that this argument is not prominent in the discourse.

[1]: https://fairmind.org/guides/death-penalty

I see; this makes more sense. It's a little hard to imagine these days though, but ages ago, mobs storming the local jail and hanging a suspect wasn't that uncommon.

> ages ago, mobs storming the local jail and hanging a suspect wasn't that uncommon.

Sometimes, suspects don't even make it to the jail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby_Shoots_Lee_Harvey_Os...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

Uncommon or not, vigilantism is incompatible with justice on a societal level, regardless of any alleged guilt of offenders.

Without a showing of evidence, a trial of the accused, and a verdict that withstands judgment, we're left with theories and conjecture, and hatchets long left unburied.

No revolution only happens when the law is unjust to people who are in their same tribe…

Reply on news.ycombinator.com