Justice was a “virtue”, a concept that was debated over and over even since the time of Plato and Socrates. For the most part of history, it has been identified with doing proper purpose, giving what one owes. Recently, justice has been understood especially when talking about the legal system, as punishing those who did not abide by the law. The law is composed of the constitution and everything in its scope. Breaking the law is popularly known as crime, rendering the person as a criminal. Nevertheless, no one could simply accuse anyone of being a criminal.
There must first be a justification process for the action that was allegedly done. Aside from that, there are possibilities that the action was not really done on purpose or was not actually done at all. Thus, the person would be set on trial. The main purpose of trials is to have an objective look into the matter. In a trial, there are jurors and/or judges, witness/es, the suspect or the culprit and other court personnel’s. Justice in today’s world occupies the part of morality that is identified with the good or the right thing. All the conceived evil and wrongness are assumed to be under the name “injustice”.
However, in the way that the current legal system works; justice is usually equated with honesty. An honest justice system would imply that justice is well served. On the other hand, a justice system which is clouded with deception and lies usually results into an unfair justice. It is implied in this paper that deceptions and lies could be present in a judicial procedure. This is true since most of the judicial process relies on words and statements “made under oath” in the courtroom. True, that statements are made under oath, this is presumed to reduce the intent of lying of a person. It works in certain situation but not in all.
As, this is the case, it was very hard to identify, if the people who are speaking in court was telling the truth or telling a lie. Even lie-detector test, often fail to give accurate measures and results. The issue about honesty was a top priority in the issue of justice. In some case, justice could be the same as honesty. The problem with honesty does not end on the blatant lies that are mostly revealed during cross-examination in courts. Honesty becomes a problem when the person is charged or was proven guilty due to false testimonies. In this case, the real culprit is still on the loose.
Walking safely and confidently in the streets with an innocent victim helplessly stayed behind bars for crime/s he does not commit. This obviously is a perversion of justice. And it is through bending honesty and the inability to asses honest from dishonest answers that things like this happens. Justice is also considered as giving to someone what was due to them. In such case, criminals are given what is due to them through a punishment with respect to the crimes that they have committed. Justice, one could assume, is about a convention that works in able to protect the people or the citizen to which justice was made for.
In this sense, justice is a set of human convention in order to protect themselves. Justice is served, when the people whom it must protect stay protected. Those who go against the conventions of justice are considered as criminals and are therefore punished in order to maintain the greater order and also to deter other people from doing the same thing. This theory concerning justice comes from Thomas Hobbes, who believes that justice was a part of a social contract signed by men in order to protect themselves from others.