It should be pretty straightforward what justice is about, right? It relates to the application of a set of laws that govern how people of a particular group ought to behave. In so doing, the group is led towards a state where it flourishes.
So what happens if someone defies or fails to keep to these set of laws? That's where punishment and sentencing come into play. From my limited experience of legal matter, there are perhaps two types of such cases. The first type is clear-cut -- the defendant pleads guilty; a charge is issued; case closed. The second type, however, involves instances where parties disagree on the resolution of a matter and need to argue it out. It is these latter set of cases that I wanted to raise some opinions about.
Before I do that, however, it might be necessary to consider one particular feature of the legal system. Again in my limited understanding of legal matter, the protocol for sentencing tends to follow very rigid guidelines. As a result, people have learned how to respond to the punishments related to an offence; today, there is even ready advice on how to avoid getting caught. While it is true that a lot of this advice might not be true, what is important here is that people are beginning to embrace law-breaking. In this post, I am hence not referring to major crimes like theft or murder but rather to smaller offences like speeding or illegal parking.
I do not think that people would deny that speeding is dangerous or that parking illegally is a good thing to do. Rather, I feel that the present mindset is indicative of their discontent that there are many people getting away with breaking the law. I would posit a claim here that it is often the more ruthless and cunning that tend to escape punishment.
Vehicle accidents provide a useful example for consideration especially since these are painfully complicated procedures to resolve. Unless there is death involved or serious damage incurred, accidents are often too small for the police to carry out a thorough investigation. The ultimate aim of course is for both parties to reach a consensus and to quickly resolve the matter.
(Parties, of course, would also need to gather evidence that could support their own case. This might be a problem if one of the parties had been incapacitated during the accident -- however, this scenario overly complicates matters and shall be ignored for now.)
If parties cannot reach a consensus, the case is brought to court. If such a situation were to occur, several other layers of costs then become incurred. Firstly, court fees will be charged to the losing party -- which is often very hefty. Secondly, the cost of time and effort in preparing for a court appearance is problematic. While that is precisely why we have lawyers, employing a lawyer just adds again to the cost of pursuing justice.
If one party is rich, in other words, he tends to have nothing to lose. If he's in the wrong, he has the ability to tempt and convince the other party to settle the matter. If he is in the right or if the matter is uncertain, he still would have the ability to intimidate the other party.
It is perhaps hence good that Singapore today provides legal aid to assist the poorer member of society. However, the kind of legal protection that such aid can provide is often very basic. In cases where everything boils down to a negotiation, it ultimately becomes a matter of who has the better money to hire the better speaker.
It is perhaps only in the movies that protagonists will forego money simply for the pursuit of justice. After all, the story of the movies end with the protagonist attaining justice. In real life, however, what happens after justice is attained? At its core, justice is hence a very vague concept that has no monetary value and hence no practical worth.
A useful analogy can perhaps be seen in the case of environmental consciousness. As China had previously argued, going green is a very worthwhile ideal to pursue. However, when it comes to job employment and survivability of its Chinese people, these ideals have to take a backseat. Similarly, perhaps justice is really a luxury that belongs to the rich...
