JUSTICE: the exercise of power by an authority to redress the transgression of its rules

Justice is the execution of consequences when the rules of a governing authority are transgressed. The power of a ruling social authority is established and maintained according to the success it achieves in persecuting offences against its regulations. An authority is an authority only in so much as it is able enforce its preferences upon the behaviour of those individuals and groups over which it claims control. Authorities administer their 'justice' because it is 'righteous'... that is to say, because it conforms to their own simplified perspective of the universe. Their world-view is so self-evidentially convincing... to themselves... that nobody should be allowed to disobey their laws. In order to further imbue the laws with unreserved respect, they are often created in the name of a god, so that the power behind any punishments is seen to be coming from the deity and not from the humans in control. Thus when a group of orchid-fanciers manages to take over the organisation of the local garden club... through apathy and lack of diligence of the general membership... they will introduce rules to favour orchid-growers. They will promote the assertion that orchids are god's preferred flower and that anyone growing anything else will be tortured, hung, shot, burned or otherwise discouraged. Quite a long time and numerous upheavals must eventuate before the members will be able to grow vegetables again. At the other end of the scale, if an individual or a social organization does not have the power to administer justice and enforce the consequences of breaking its rules, then it is not an authority and its rules are irrelevant.

Justice is not 'fairness'... although they are frequently equated... and most groups and individuals seeking redress complain if retribution is not heavily biased in their direction. Even although there is no precedent in nature for such a contrived concept, experience has so far indicated that it is certainly in the interests of social stability that justice be seen to be 'fair'. Firstly, the evidence upon which a judgement is made as to whether rules have been transgressed or not must be high probability facts with certificates of credibility which have been rigorously and sceptically questioned. Secondly, justice can only be equitable or 'fair' if the rules of the governing authority and its consequent exercise of power recognize and accept that fonts of creativity be allowed their cycle of opportunity, that the destructive aspirations of greed be curtailed and contained, and that religious and cultural delusions be conferred no special considerations. A justice which is inequitable... favouring one social group for example... has negative social consequences, increases instability, and promotes the propagation of cultural pathogens... like racial intolerance... with the ultimate inevitable consequences of revolution.

The socially equitable administration of justice by an individual or a biased group is essentially unattainable. Every particular individual is biased by their nurture and the limit of their interests. Any group... be it military, legal, religious or economic... espouses a perspective which appears balanced only to themselves. When a social group manages to hijack the administration of justice, and the members obtain economic rewards by participating, unfairness is virtually certain. Prosecution representatives strive for convictions rather than trying to determine the actual train of events. Defence councils strive for acquittals rather than ascertaining the guilt or not of their clients. Evidence that is inconvenient is suppressed. If there is a jury, it can be swayed by emotional appeals and selected information. The justice system becomes manipulated to serve the ends of the group conducting the administration.

For social stability and equity, justice needs to be administered by democratically elected organizations. Existence is vastly more complex and chaotic than any set of regulatory rules can possibly account for. Any system of authority needs to be administered by individuals who can make provision for creativity and accept, perhaps ruefully, that nature is not fair and never has been. It is a distorted aberration of social equity for one group to dominate the delivery of justice... especially if that group specializes in the details of the rules and their consequences. A society can only aspire to treat its citizens even-handedly if the judgements as to guilt or otherwise are made by a broad spectrum representation of its members. Judgements should be made by a panel representing a diverse community interest, which has a consensus confidence of the members. Justice should be administered in effect by a professional panel appointed by a procedure which promotes those individuals who have the confidence of the society within which they live.