Revenge VS justice. What's the difference? Explain.

Revenge is a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived. It is also called payback, retribution, retaliation or vengeance; it may be characterized as a form of justice, an altruistic action which enforces societal rules and which is based on a deep rooted evolutionary instinct that helped humanity by implementing social cohesion in a subtle way.

Well put! I love your way saying things; yo the point and very clear to undersatnd. thanks! =)

...vengeance is pointless but justice serves us well. Currently the justice system screws the taxpayers and serves the lawyers, bureaucrats, and some business men. "And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater

The current systems and mentality leaves me to wonder about the system itself and the moderation...

It's designed to serve lawyers in all facets of their careers. We have 100 times more per capita than does Japan. Part of the problem is the constitutional limitation imposed by "a jury of ones peers". Professional jurors would serve us all far better, especially fiscally.

You got a point and some interesting ideas. Would professional jurors though have a conflict of interest anywhere? Who would be their employer? I am interesting in hearing about this. You are the first hear to propose such ideas here.

For pragmatic information look into the practices in Europe. Professional jurors are employees of the state and are trained in critical thinking (which the Texas GOP wants to have excluded from their curriculum), based upon what I've heard. Travesties like the O.J. outcome would be avoided. Lawyers will tell you that the quality of the jury has more bearing on the outcome of trials than does the truth.

Fascinating, I will look into it. I appreciate the information.
And you are right about the jury part, isn't that where "To Kill a Mockingbird" got one of it's premises? Love that book btw.....

I agree. Revenge is an undoing of the revenger....

I've always understood that revenge is PERSONAL, whereas JUSTICE being served means the punishment is handed down in the best interest of society. EXAMPLE: several years back, my best friend was brutally murdered along with 4 others. If I sought out and murdered the man who did this, it would be revenge. (trust me, I seriously thought about doing it) The murderer was caught, tried, and convicted by a judge and jury - he received what society felt was JUST (justice) punishment.

That's good the person got caught and received sentencing for his horrific crime.
I hope you are well; that suffering you have has no parallel.

According to the Bible and the Quaran, eye for an eye is justice.

Revenge is when you get your justice, then extend it to the family or groups to which the offender is associated.

That's just it. If a person gets crippled by someone that tried to rob them, i.e., one would would think the fair thing to do is to cripple the offender as well, but it wouldn't make it just, would it?

You got the point of my comment. Congrantulations.

It would be far better that justice be served when the offender in the example you gave would be a slave to the crippled person for the rest of their lives as he would have to be the replacements for the crippled body parts of the victim.

That would be fair, but would it be just? That's is till my question. The two are not necessarily synonymous.

In your example.

Was it just for the offender to cripple the victim. answer NO.

Would it be just for the victim to extract from the offender to be also crippled. answer NO.

Would in then be just for the offender to replace the abilities of the victim as the victims "slave" or make just restitution, yet restitution would not repair the victims crippled condition. Hence, the offender must for all things to be equal, replace the abilities that the victim lost, which unless there is a surgial procedure that could be done to repair the damage there would be no compensation that could be offered short of acting as the victims slave

I think the two are essentially the same thing, and it's only "fair" because we've agreed to abide by the system of our own accord. Chaos and lawlessness aren't really as bad as they've been made out to be by proponents of this vast "Justice" machine that steals peoples' lives.

???? Chaos and lawlessness would be better?? While I HAVE to agree things did seem more "just" when it was legal for everyone to carry weapons, but obviously that didn't work because everyone had their own idea of what "justice" was. People were being murdered for stealing cattle! What we need now, is a system that abides by it's own laws - for example, when the death penalty is handed down, they are put to death - NOT housed in prison in hopes of having the sentence repealed. MAJORITY must be the law - it can't work any other way.

I just said Chaos and lawlessness got a bad rap-- not that they'd necessarily be 'better' than what we have. The problem I see is things like "drug offenses" landing people in prison for most of their lives, prostitutes being locked up again and again, the mentally ill who get thrown in prison because there's no place else for them, etc. Heck, most murderers wouldn't re-offend, anyway-- they just killed someone in the heat of the moment and really aren't any danger to society at large. How dare we lock these people up, really? Not as a deterrent, and nobody's getting any 'justice' or compensation out of it.

Death penalty cases represent only a tiny fraction of those in The System.

I just think we've been fed a line of crap about how necessary it is to crack down on all these things in such a way. Now that money's getting tight, we may have to re-examine our methods.

Interesting observation, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Anarchy would be horrible.
I find that our justice system while better than many nations, it's not necessarily just either.
You get white collar criminals that go to jail for a very brief time and come out and stay rich, while poor people go for stealing food due to hunger and remain in jail for years and come out with nothing.

should be a huge differences

It should, but sometimes, I don't think it is, Sister. I can't help but wonder...

justice is legal...

A very good point, but does making something legal mean it's right? I'm talking about penalties and person's own mores and ethics. I'm sorry if I'm asking to know. I just really like to see what all think.

YES. When the majority sets the rules, it is considered "just" (right). Of course that never will include everybody, there will always be a minority that disagrees because of their personal beliefs. IF you can come up with a BETTER way to keep society in order, go ahead and fight for it - who knows, if your idea is better, it could happen!! Just remember - your idea must be in beneficial for those of us who DO already have good moral beliefs and abide by them.

Absolutely, and a just system should be based on a system of mores and ethics that should be agreed on by the people.