The Indefintion Of Justice

so this is another paper to screen translation (hopefully with improvement on the original thoughts)

last year my English teacher was undoubtedly the best teacher i have ever had, she had such an enthusiasm for teaching us which in turn made us enthusiastic to learn (little tip for ya dad).
the play that we studied on that year was the famous "12 Angry Men"
which talks of a jury that thinks the defendant is guilty, except that is for one juror who thinks that he has reasonable doubt to believe otherwise. Eventually (after two 3 hours sessions over two days) this one juror convinced everyone to sway in their thoughts because concordingly everything didn't fit the picture, our teacher got us to write on what we think justice, at first i thought "oh crap im going to be here until lunch time" but i found it an interesting task which i would recommend to all when you have some spare time and a lot of thought about how society sucks in your mind. here is what i wrote

What is Justice?
over generations and century's of debate out society has redefined justice over and over, so what is it that makes it so adaptable to us, that let's us decide how we punish suspects of crime? justice certainly is an interesting word, the oxford dictionary defines it as;
"the exercise of authority & the maintenance of righteousness" out of this we have to ask ourselves two questions, the first and foremost being, who has authority over who and how do we monitor this to ensure that the authority itself is just? and secondly;
are we entitled to tell someone that they are right and wrong and concordingly how do we define right from wrong?

to deal with the first question i would almost be certain to say that to have authority over someone we must not only have superiority morally but also in power, through strength, mental status or even money (sadly). one of the many curious aspects to us humans is that we are very secluded (some more than others) and in general we like to keep to ourselves who we know the we really are. humans are literally wired to show compassion, from being concerned about a stranger who has fainted on the street to calling an ambulance for a car crash victim or even going to lengths of travelling worldwide to see each other. the interesting aspect on top of this is that we like to keep to ourselves (once again some of us more than others) the good deed's we do to one another and in turn we have many many secrets, even if we say we have nothing to hide. the fact is we have everything to hide. i think we can safely say that to judge one person's authority over another person then we must be able to balance and compare each of their; good deeds, bad deeds, economical status, physical condition and mental stability. anyone with half a brain could tell you that that is simply not possible to balance and compare every aspect that i just listed hence the reason can never rightfully determine whether one person has authority over another.

to deal with the second issue, i think we can safely say that there are many different views on right and wrong throughout our religion's, races, countries and governmental systems. for example if you are a female reading this and you are wearing a tee-shirt and/or showing more than 1 inch of skin from your wrist upwards then in Sudan (unsure on the particular country) you would be considered a prostitute and would the authorities would then commence to stone you to death. do you see this is right? they obviously do otherwise there would have been a law change over the year's. in other countries they hold cults and beliefs that monthly there has to be a burning sacrifice to their god's of which the victim is chosen at random within their tribe. do you see that as fair? then there is the undeniable truth that what is right is not always true and what is true is not always right (the vice versa is necessary when you think about it in context). the simple fact is that it is human nature to lie to get out of trouble (which often leads to more trouble). in a court of law there are no lie detector's, no therapist or psychologist's (unless by coincidence) just you, an oath (which could mean nothing to you or that you do not believe in), a judge and 12 juror's of whom you have never met before in your life (once again, unless by coincidence) and who will most likely believe anything you say unless the evidence provided defies it. when it comes down to it the court is a battle of intellect and word's which is why being a lawyer is one of the hardest and most demanding job's out there, (effectively 4 year course i think, followed by many years or pre-trials etc.)
therefore to tell someone that they are wrong or right in not only wrong and unjust but morally wrong because of the simple fact that only they (and the victim if he/she survived) can recall with their memory what happened (will do a small post on the inaccuracy of memory later.)

we cannot access someones mind (firstly we would need to get past the phenomenon of "what is the mind?") and record what they have experienced, it is simply impossible in this day and age, so to conclude i do not see this definition to be one that fits the puzzle so to speak. we will never find a definition that everyone can agree with because every ones view on the topic is unique (the thing i love the most about it.) i think my personal definition for it would be;
"a legal correction by the authorities for something we (society) perceive to be wrong, the maintenance of consequence in order to maintain order within our society"

thanks you, would love to hear your view on it.