tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post750662095100214444..comments2024-03-18T03:40:39.185-04:00Comments on The Curious Jew: The Meaning of JusticeChanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17655144434904957767noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-39645061793040656842007-08-31T12:33:00.000-04:002007-08-31T12:33:00.000-04:00Yep. :)Aside: There should be safeguards in place ...Yep. :)<BR/><BR/>Aside: There should be safeguards in place in the legal system to protect against such incidents - punishing misuse of the system while not letting go criminals would be wise.Ezziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12494592434522239195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-57845478674319484722007-08-31T10:33:00.000-04:002007-08-31T10:33:00.000-04:00The system is not set up as an arbitrary set of ru...The system is not set up as an arbitrary set of rules. They are all designed to prevent a false positive or to ensure the utmost degree of truth. It is hard for me to see it as choosimg the system over truth as one is meant to serve the other. If something falls outside of our guidelines it does so due to it's possible leading to a "non-truth". Th truth is not deemed unimportant, it is of such supreme importance that we avaoid at all costs it's opposite. The same is true for the religous rulings mentioned.<BR/><BR/>As you said, using this on a purely religious level is not so simple given the divine aspect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-20023548469439266512007-08-31T10:31:00.000-04:002007-08-31T10:31:00.000-04:00I watch Law & Order. ALOT.I watch Law & Order. ALOT.Mordyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17867691247115831385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-77499818049861804102007-08-31T10:30:00.000-04:002007-08-31T10:30:00.000-04:00(I feel a bit awkward posting here, but as I've go...(I feel a bit awkward posting here, but as I've got something to say that might help you, here goes)<BR/><BR/>Firstly, you are confusing the system with the things it aims to protect. The system is never (or should never be) an end in itself. It may value the public good over the rights of the individual and see itself as the sole guardian of the public safety (actually it has to do so - the judiciary is the branch of government which <I>must</I> have a monopoly of legitimate force for the state to hold together), but it should not value <I>itself</I> over truth, freedom, security or anything else. That is tyranny.<BR/><BR/>That aside, I think the fundamental problem here is the difference between the ideal and the actual. The assumption the question works on is that system of justice has <I>already</I> broken down. The ideal legal system should protect various things (truth, justice, freedom, the public safety), but here it has failed. If the only way to restore it is to concentrate on one element at the expense of others; what do you choose? There isn't a 'right' answer, because all the answers are less than perfectly satisfactory, by definition. Hence, there are arguments on both sides, as you recognise.<BR/><BR/>A legal system needs checks and balances to avoid corruption on all sides. You need high standards of evidence to prevent wrongful convictions and laws like that against double jeopardy to prevent state tyranny, yet you need a way of redressing obvious mistakes. Historically, this has always been very controversial, unsurprisingly.<BR/><BR/>For example, under the Torah's system, one of the functions of the king was to redress such mistakes. The king had extra-legal power to operate in cases where the ordinary justice system could not apply (for example, see David on his deathbed giving Shlomo a list of people to execute). I think the Sanhedrin also had a degree of extra-legal power, although I can not remember its exact definition. Certainly the laws of evidence had a degree of flexibility both in more minor cases (IIRC, in monetary, civil cases, the judges could listen to a single witness or a disqualified witness (e.g. a woman or slave) and decide how much credibility to assign them) and in the most extreme capital cases.<BR/><BR/>However, this was also obviously open to abuse (see the midrash about King Menashe having Isaiah put to death on trumped-up charges, or perhaps Shaul trying to kill David). So then you need to bring in a load of checks on the king: limits on his power (in the ancient world = his wealth, horses, hareem), try to ensure he is God-fearing and law-abiding (the rules about the king's sefer Torah), and have the prophets to criticise him. Of course it isn't an easy balance, one need only look at the books of Kings and Chronicles to see that.<BR/><BR/>But the problem persists under every system. In seventeenth century England, they fought a long and bitter civil war over precisely the issue of the king's extraordinary royal prerogative (although taxation was more the issue there than arrest, it has to be said). Or just look at present-day debates over Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, 'ticking bomb' torture dilemmas...<BR/><BR/>Attempting to resolve such dilemmas is a fundamental part of what it means to be human. Attempting to resolve them within a <I>halakhic</I> framework is what it means to be Jewish. A moral dilemma is a choice between two things that are neither completely good nor completely bad. If all the answers to the moral dilemmas of life were obvious, there could be no possibility of error except by deliberate rebellion, but there could be no debate, no discussion, no personal growth as we try to understand what concepts like 'truth', 'freedom' and 'justice' really <I>mean</I>.<BR/><BR/>This is a fascinating topic, and I probably could say more, both from a Jewish and secular point of view, and also to question your view that 'religion' is a system comparable to that of 'justice', but I need to dash.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com