Oofki.Net

Without a doubt there are many flaws of the American (as well as others) justice systems.  Celeberties can afford better lawyers who have extraordinary persuasion skills.  But that is not what I am looking to focus on here.  The real problem I see is in the civil courts; how can justice truely be served after another person’s rights are infringed upon?  There may be no right answer to that question and in there lies the problem, how can justice be served when there is no way to undo what has happened?

For starters it would be helpful to understand what the word justice means.  Merriam-Webster defines justice as: “The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” To break that down, in America, justice is maintained by the court systems; the result of a hearing should be impartial (which is hardly ever the case); And if it is found that one has been wronged they are entitiled to a reward and/or the offending party will be punished.

Now that it is “clear” what justice is defined as everyone should be happy that United States has a justice system for the people of its country or in this case a disagreement arises.  A reward does not often enough, considering that in most cases when a “reward” is appointed to victim it is a reward of or relating to monetary compensation.  By definition in the case that money is awarded to the victim, that is one of the two ways to compensate for a crime that has denied a said person their own rights.  From here the first question arises; does money make your broken nose heal?  Yes, it may pay for the medical bills; but, in the case that money is awarded for “pain and suffering,” does that really compensate for the rights of the victim that have been compromised?

And we have punishments.  Here is an example of a punishment:  An argument arises and one person threatens the other then proceeds to physically harm the first person - assault and battery.  Say the case is that there is little proof of this incident and the “punishment” is that the first party is “rewarded” with a restraining order.  Now the “criminal” has been “punished” by not being able to go within a certain amount of feet of the victim.  That’s it?  What about the medical bills?  Okay, even if the medical bills are paid as part of the reward/punishment, are they supposed to be even?  The victim’s natural rights have been violated and all (s)he has to make them feel just is paid medical bills and a piece of paper saying the offender cannot be within so many feet of them.  How is money (paper) and a piece of paper saying “do not go near them” supposed to make up for what has happened?

At this time, I would like the point out one of my original statements: “There may be no right answer…”  I cannot say there is a clear cut punishment for any crime.  Nor can I say that at this moment I can think of a better way to punish a person, but how can anyone feel that a piece of paper does anyone justice?  What encourages one with the current justice system to go through the proper channels when they know they will never have that feeling of just?