Every society wrestles with the nature of justice, punishment, fairness, and order. The iconic image of a blindfolded woman wielding a set of scales – or sometimes a sword – has endured as a symbol around the world. Beyond a symbol, what is justice? This article covers the three main types of justice, what the earliest justice systems looked like, and the famous philosophers who developed theories of justice.<\/p>\n
Justice refers to concepts of fairness, equality, moral behavior, lawfulness, and order. It seeks to answer questions like \u201cWhat are people owed?\u201d and \u201cWhat makes a punishment just?\u201d Everyone from philosophers to policymakers to humanitarians is interested in what justice means. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Justice can be boiled down into three types: distributive, retributive, and restorative.<\/p>\n Distributive justice is about the fair division of resources within a community. “Fair division” means everyone either gets or has access to the same services and physical goods. Why? The basis of distributive justice is that everyone is morally equal. Distributive justice<\/a> affects areas like income, wealth, opportunities, jobs, welfare, and infrastructure. Principles of distributive justice include equity, need, and proportionality. While the basic definition of distributive justice is simple, how a society should fairly distribute resources is complex.<\/p>\n Retributive justice, which can also be called criminal justice, focuses on how to punish crime. It\u2019s based on the idea that when wrongdoing is committed, the wrongdoer should get a proportionate punishment. That doesn\u2019t mean the wrongdoer should be subjected to exactly the same ordeal (i.e. if someone hits someone in the face, they don\u2019t need to be hit back as their formal punishment), but it needs to be proportionate. Those who study retributive justice also tend to emphasize the need for indifference, meaning that justice shouldn\u2019t be personal or based on revenge. While many justice systems include some kind of retributive justice<\/a>, its effectiveness is debatable. Considering the flaws in many criminal justice systems, retributive justice can also end up harming innocent people or unfairly punishing certain groups over others.<\/p>\n Restorative justice was developed in the 1970s, though many of its tenets come from Indigenous justice practices<\/a>. Restorative justice focuses on helping victims of crimes, but it also wants to help offenders understand the harm they\u2019ve caused. The goal is repair, not punishment. Engagement, accountability, cooperation, and community are all essential principles. Restorative justice practices have been used in many criminal justice cases, but they\u2019ve also been adopted during conflicts involving families, schools, and workplaces. Unlike retributive justice, restorative justice doesn\u2019t focus on what criminals deserve, but rather on what victims need to heal and what communities can do to prevent re-offending.<\/p>\n You can learn more about Justice in this course by Harvard University<\/a>.<\/p>\n Societies have changed drastically over the millennia. Justice systems are no exception, although all have dealt with concerns like property rights, murder, theft, marriage, and so on. Here are three examples of early justice systems:<\/p>\n The oldest law code from Mesopotamia – known as the Code of Urukagina – is referenced in other texts, but no copies exist today. We know more about the Code of Ur-Nammu<\/a> (2100-2050 BCE), which is named after the ruler Ur-Nammu. The Code, which consists of 57 laws, establishes fines for all punishments except capital offenses, which are dealt with more harshly. The Code of Hammurabi<\/a>, named after the first king of Babylon, is more famous than the earlier Ur-Nammu code. Through its 282 rules involving marriage, inheritances, crimes, punishment, violence, and more, Hammurabi\u2019s code established a comprehensive legal code. Unlike Ur-Nammu\u2019s code, Hammurabi\u2019s tended to adopt an \u201ceye for an eye\u201d framework. This included harsh punishments like the cutting off of eyes, ears, tongues, and hands. It also said someone accused of a crime should be considered innocent until proven guilty. It\u2019s believed that the Code of Hammurabi inspired other ancient justice systems.<\/p>\n What about a court system<\/a>? In Mesopotamian society, disputes between individuals could be settled privately, but if that wasn\u2019t possible, they could go to court. There were no lawyers, however. A local council would hear a case, followed by a judge or a court. Local courts tended to deal with civil and criminal cases, such as theft and property issues. Only men served in the courts.<\/p>\n Ancient Egyptian law was based on the concept of ma\u2019at, which means harmony. Egyptians even had a goddess named Ma\u2019at<\/a>, who personified truth, justice, and harmony. She held the universe in balance. Without her, everything would descend into chaos, which to Egyptians was the same as injustice. Ma\u2019at was also an important figure in the Afterlife. After a person died, they would travel to the Hall of Judgement where their heart was weighed on a scale against Ma\u2019at\u2019s feather of truth. If their heart was balanced, they could continue to the Afterlife. If it didn\u2019t, the person ceased to exist.<\/p>\n Historians haven\u2019t found an ancient Egyptian code like the Code of Ur-Nammu or Hammurabi, so specifics are unknown. We do know that religious principles governed Egyptian law<\/a>, so the king, as a god on earth, served as society\u2019s top judge. There were also local courts that dealt with village concerns. Land, water rights, and other property issues were common. Those accused of crimes were considered guilty until proven innocent, so if someone made a false accusation and was found out, punishments were harsh. In ancient Egyptian society, justice was about avoiding chaos, so anything that threatened harmony was met with severe consequences. Murder, tomb-robbing, and rape were punished with death or mutilation.<\/p>\n Confucius, who we\u2019ll learn more about shortly, had a major impact on ancient China\u2019s view of justice and law. Confucius and his disciples believed a harmonious society depended on five relationships<\/a>. These were the relationships between a ruler and subject, a husband and wife, a father and son, an older and younger brother, and a friend and friend. When everyone worked on being a good person, cared for these relationships, and fulfilled their responsibilities, society wouldn\u2019t even need strict laws or punishments.<\/p>\n The imperial Chinese code during the Qin dynasty (221-206 BCE) rejected Confucius’ teachings in favor of Legalism, which taught that humans were naturally violent. To prevent humans from falling into their natural, evil state, Legalism taught that the government needed to take full control. Li Si, the counselor to the first emperor, created a harsh code<\/a> following the unification of China. The emperor appointed district officials who served as judges and investigators. Those accused of crimes were guilty until proven innocent while trials didn\u2019t have lawyers or juries. Punishments varied based on the crime, but many were harsh. Fines, hard labor, beatings, and banishment were doled out for minor violations. Serious crimes were punished with mutilations, castration, and death. When the Han Dynasty (202 BCE-220 CE) made Confucianism<\/a> the state philosophy, China\u2019s justice system softened.<\/p>\n The earliest justice systems didn\u2019t come from thin air; many were deeply impacted by influential philosophers. Philosophy has continued to play a leading role in how society develops and deploys justice. As justice is one of history\u2019s most discussed topics, it\u2019s challenging to distill it to just a few figures. There are many other important thinkers not included in the following list, but the four here are a good starting point.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve already discussed Confucius a little, but there are a few other things worth knowing about his views on justice and law<\/a>. He based everything on the belief that humans were naturally good, which meant they understood the difference between right and wrong and were drawn to doing the right thing. They still needed guidance, however, but instead of specific laws, Confucius advocated for a code of ethics that included Five Constants and Four Virtues. These included Zhong (loyalty) and Yi (justice and righteousness). By following this code of ethics and maintaining a hierarchy of authority (sons obey fathers, younger brothers obey older brothers, and wives obey husbands), Confucius believed strict justice systems wouldn\u2019t be necessary. In Confucius\u2019 view, justice is about ethical behavior (which comes naturally to humans) and maintaining hierarchies.<\/p>\n Plato built on his teacher Socrates\u2019 ideas about justice and the belief that absolute truths exist. Because absolute truth exists, Plato believed justice couldn\u2019t be subjective. Balance and control were essential, as well as a hierarchy. Plato\u2019s vision of a \u201cjust\u201d society <\/a>had three classes: craftspeople, auxiliaries, and guardians. The guardians were in charge, but to achieve justice, all classes must embody certain virtues. Craftspeople should be temperate, auxiliaries should be courageous, and guardians should be wise. In Plato\u2019s mind, only guardians – who were led by a philosopher king – could understand what justice looked like. Like Confucius, Plato\u2019s concept of justice depends on groups staying in a hierarchy and living moral lives.<\/p>\n German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who is considered one of the modern West\u2019s most influential figures, centered his ideas about justice on freedom<\/a>. In his view, freedom is what gives human beings our dignity; it\u2019s our only innate right. All laws must be created through the lens of freedom, bearing in mind that people don\u2019t have the right to infringe on the freedom of others. For Kant, the only moral laws<\/a> were laws that saw people as free, equal, and independent. What about crime and punishment? Kant believed in retributive justice<\/a> and lex talonis, which is the theory that punishments need to inflict similar harm as the wrong done. If someone commits murder, death is the only equivalent punishment. Kant does also advocate for forgiveness, however, saying that repaying a wrong out of revenge or hatred is not virtuous. Kant devoted a good deal of his work to justice, applying his theories<\/a> to private, private, and international law.<\/p>\nWhat are the three main types of justice? <\/strong><\/h2>\n
Distributive justice<\/h3>\n
Retributive justice<\/h3>\n
Restorative justice<\/h3>\n
What were the world\u2019s earliest justice systems? <\/strong><\/h2>\n
Mesopotamia<\/h3>\n
Ancient Egypt<\/h3>\n
Ancient China<\/h3>\n
How have philosophers defined justice? <\/strong><\/h2>\n
Confucius (551-479 BCE)<\/h3>\n
Plato (428\/7-348\/7 BCE)<\/h3>\n
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)<\/h3>\n
John Rawls (1921-2002)<\/h3>\n