Ethics

Criminal justice is a tenure used for the progression engrossed in attesting any illegal bustle that incorporates detaining the accused, congregating evidence in relation to the felony stanched, making justification, carrying out the verdict after the crime has been proved and carrying out retribution. It is apparent that we need a system of principles and rules to help guide us.  For this to be fully carried out then ethics must be applied. Ethics also known as moral philosophy is concerned with making of just ruling about what is accurate and what is erroneous. With no ethical scaffold then the decisions made will be based on prejudice and emotions. Justice is a model of ethical aptness based on equality, impartiality and fairness.

According to Kelsen, when we say that a certain order is just it means that the order whether political or social conforms to the norms and behavior of men and is acceptable to all persons. Justice is simply a social happiness and it is only the just man who is happy and the unjust is despondent. However, justice is not something that should make us feel obliged but we have a right to insist for it. Justice also should not be baffled with good as justice concerns interest and rights and not necessarily wants.

People continually portray different moral fibers as sometimes they are generous and selfish on the grounds of self interest. Some maintain that the need to have justice is as a result of the need for generosity and fairness. Contrary to that it is evident that if we were all good in the grounds of morals then justice would lose its meaning. Consequently if we are all uncouth, then following the rules of justice would prove troublesome.

In relation to distributive justice the three concepts must apply. Fairness in this notion means that the decree is presented in a way that is apposite, explicable and comprehensive to the parties involved. The ruling should neither be based on predisposition nor influence or pressure from one party. Every person should have an equal right to the system of rule in power. To advocate for equality then economic and social inequity should be put in a way that they are mutually to the benefit of the deprived and are attached to positions open for all people.

Impartiality is another model that must work hand in hand if at all justice is to be administered. It is a code of justice embracing that verdict should be based on objectiveness an impartial justice is the element of carrying out ruling with an exception of favoritism, biasness, prejudice and passion. However, impartiality does not require that people be treated evenly under all circumstances. Basing it on this it clearly means that groups and people should be treated differently on the grounds of merit. Many authorized systems tend to treat slayers differently from the innocent people. Impartiality basically requires that one be treated as an equal but not receive equal treatment.
Most people still believe that misconduct on the grounds of gender, race, sexual identity or religion ought ethically to depict the wrongdoer to an aggravated punishment. This credence appears to be ingrained in the conjecture that crimes committed out of hate represent an idiosyncratic type of moral wrongdoing. Equality which is the other concept for justice must be practiced to curb this animosity. In many years there has been a predilection to demand equity for all persons on the grounds of merits and status.

In retributive justice, it demands that analogous cases be treated and punished in the same way unless there are convincing reasons from the individual for example mental health matters. Question whether or not equality can ever be fully administered is a controversial one in that there are circumstances impeding it even in the system of law.

There are various theories that bound the concept of justice and one of it is egalitarian theory.  According to Scheffler, the fundamental initiative drawn from the theory is that inequalities in the benefit that persons enjoy are suitable if they develop from voluntary choices of people but if they are derived from the shallow grounds like the class, race, ethnicity, intelligence and native knack then they are unjust. Other theories are Marxist and Libertarian theory. Marxist theory places the need factor as dominant as far as  justice is concerned while Libertarian theory works to prop up freedom from the interference of the government thus entitlement and merits are given dominion over needs. In relation to work Marxist system of distribution propose that people should be paid according to their need. This is logically proper as people would earn in relative to their status quo but still it is illogical in that a person with one child would earn more than the one without.

These theories show that justice and in this case equality can never be achieved fully. If we are to relate the theories with employment sector and the salary paid we will see that not all workers would agree to be paid in the same way just because they are working in the same department. If it were so not many would agree to the many years of schooling and long hours knowing there are no inducement to it. Still it would be illogical to pay according to the production since people are different and the nature of work done is still diverse.

The principal of justice is the most fundamental rationale that the law system should take into consideration as it leaves many questions unanswered. The law has left loopholes and it has failed to fully explicate on the scope of the concepts of justice system as many people have come up with opinions based on self interest.