It is said that justice is blind to make it fair. Should it be? If it is blind, then it cannot see all the needs of people who come under its jurisdiction. It is also said that justice should be tempered with mercy. But shouldn't mercy be a natural part of justice? Retributive and punitive justice is the most common. I think these terms are oxymorons. Vengeance must not be part of justice.

Until we can create a society wherein all innocent victims are compensated for human miscarriages of justice, including war, we will not have achieved justice or civilization.

We are experiencing the decline of juries. Careful selection is done to decide cases; discrimination may play a large part in constituting a sitting jury. Judges are also guilty of not informing juries of their rights and points of law. The one form of jury that isn't in decline is the Grand Jury, but because it doesn't follow the laws of jurisprudence and constitutional limits and can be used as a de facto kangaroo court or inquisition, it should be abolished. The justice system needs a thorough scouring.

More of you should know about jury nullification - the ability of a jury to decide a case or sentence, regardless of the law, therefore nullifying a bad law.

Should judgments by lawyers be law? Many of the issues that the legislatures should be facing are now only being done by lawsuits brought by interest groups and their lawyers, putting the creation of law into the courts. This is not an usurpation of a power, but a judicial response to the abdication of our lawmakers because they belong to powerful special interests and cannot represent the people or defend the Constitution.

The cowardice, prejudice and conservatism of the judiciary is thwarting our freedoms. They tend to follow government viewpoints rather than protect the people. They are the line of defense of law and constitutional government against tyranny whom we intrust to uphold justice. When they fail to uphold law in the face of government pressure they have succumbed to tyranny.

Why shouldn't the justice system pay for defense? If the prosecution is paid from public (government) funds, then why should the defendant have to pay out of pocket? This situation is inherently unfair and unjust.

Law has become a commodity, not devoted to justice.

Departments of Correction correct nothing.

What do you think of police? We seem to have a contradictory position that we're glad that they're there, but we're also afraid of them. Can we trust them? It shouldn't be this way. Some years ago in some communities police were renamed "public safety" officers, but that hasn't changed their behavior. Police have become more militaristic with SWAT teams and weapons of mass destruction that are ovekill in civilian life. When they have these capabilities they tend to use them. Their view of life and law isn't that of the general public, usually a hard line and less respecting of rights; their culture is somewhat paranoid, insular and protects itself against the public. Being an authoritarian culture, police attract authoritarian personalities into its ranks. We must question whether police consider themselves public servants. It is becoming a serious problem that we don't want to address. A good beginning would be a requirement of a series of psychological tests and continuing evaluations for police candidates and holding officers to higher standards of behavior under law with severe penalties. When officers have been proven to have broken the law they should forever be prevented from police service anywhere.

The problem with police and other law enforcement agencies is that they tend to attract somewhat paranoid authoritarian personalities who want to control and coerce others. This condition may create efficient police, but questionable public servants. Applicants should be subject to strenuous psychological tests as part of acceptance policies.

The legal profession is the primary problem in the proliferation and increasing complexity of laws. They have made themselves necessary for almost all legal transactions, and so they promote and protect their profession by manipulating laws, especially if there's a lot of money involved. They are also lackeys of monied interests used to increase their power by manipulation of law. Because they are also officers of the courts, they have a biased power to protect the court system, the government and laws at the expense of the people. So it becomes a game of who can create the better legal argument. Its morality is very questionable.

Suing has become the major American sport. The proliferation of lawsuits to place blame on deep-pocketed businesses and other organizations demonstrates a failure of personal responsibility and of a society that does not teach or promote in law the tenets of individual responsibility. We are spoiled and think that we deserve entitlements.

It's a travesty of justice that lawyers will defend criminals not knowing or wanting to know whether their clients are innocent or guilty. Is it moral that the legal profession believes that knowledge of guilt or innocence will hamper defense?

We prefer to punish criminals, rather than to rehabilitate. What does this say about us?

Crime is solely defined by law, not by morality and ethics. If a law exists, it can be broken with criminal intent, but if no law exists, whether an act be right or wrong, no crime can be committed.

The only criminal laws we need are those that deal with violations of individual rights, i.e., murder, assault, robbery, stealing, fraud, libel. Lying to the public should also be a criminal act. Anything else is a violation of human rights that only gives more, totally unnecessary power to government officials.

Criminal sentencing should be more creative. For non-violent crimes the convict shouldn't be imprisoned but forced to work to repay victims; however, house arrest and/or electronic monitoring might be appropriate. Shouldn't we see the punishment? Public shaming should be reintroduced because the guilty don't appear ashamed. Perhaps we should bring back public flogging or a symbol tattooed on the forehead for public humiliation and entertainment. The penal system does need more rehabilitative services, but for those unrepentant and non-rehabilitable criminals who are a clear and present danger to society, is life imprisonment the answer or is a quick, painless death a better solution to preserve the social good? This would be a case of society ridding itself of a diseased organ. We may pity a rabid dog, but we still shoot it. We shouldn't be paying for criminals' upkeep unless it's for rehabilitation; simple incarceration too high a cost when those limited public funds could be better spent for the social good.

It's also a travesty of justice that the mentally ill who commit crimes are acquitted, i.e., not guilty by reason of insanity. Shouldn't the law be guilty by reason of insanity, but the sentencing be mandated to take into account the appropriate punishment or treatment? After all, if there is proof that the accused committed the criminal act, then there is guilt and responsibility. The determination of insanity and its effect on sentencing is a separate issue.

Why shouldn't progressive punishment allow sentencing convicts to serve as guinea pigs for scientific/medical experimentation? It wouldn't hurt them any more than a long prison sentence or execution.

Our concepts and methods of rehabilitation should be overhauled. Too many of us still want to punish rather than rehabilitate and cure or restitute victims. Or we want to put them away out of sight and mind and forget about them. This way of thinking is vindictive and counterproductive. Coercive rehabilitation could be viewed as punishment and cure, but we're afraid of interfering with an individual's mind and emotions in a scientific methodology. Our prison system does this anyway, but with crude methods and little thought to its consequences. Wouldn't it be more humane to break down a criminal personality and reconstruct it into a model citizen than to let it rot in prison or execute one? Yeah, I know, you're afraid of mind control or violating some sanctity of a human being. But a criminal violated the rights and being of his victim, and isn't our punishment for that the deprivation of social relationships, loss of job and other rights, even death? Which is worse? Prison is an abomination. If anything, it corrupts the spirit and teaches the convict more ways of criminality.

We should begin to consider that crime is a social disease, and with that in mind, we should look for causes, prevention and potential cures, not punishment. This should not relieve the criminal of responsibility for perpetrating a criminal act unless they aren't capable of responsibility, as in the insane or mentally deficient. Many criminals act out of desperation to situations not of their own making. Their lack of self control may have its roots in faulty upbringing and many other factors. Society has a responsibility to protect itself, but how it responds to attacks reflects its ability to understand or ignore causes.

America has the highest imprisonment rate of any developed country; most of those are drug-related crimes. There's something gravely wrong here that we don't want to face. The prison industry flourishes and the businesses involved are happy to make a buck, but they don't care for the plight of prisoners or their victims.

What should be most important is that victims receive restitution. Crimes have flesh and blood victims, but they are often left out of the judicial process because crime is considered an act against society, an abstraction that leads to abuses of justice. Criminals should be forced to pay back their victims.

Should criminal responsibility be based on the market value of stolen or damaged goods or on the more intangible harm to the owner victim?

Laws governing the prosecutorial profession allow much abuse of power, but too little responsibility toward the public. Prosecutors' decisions are protected to the extent that they may falsely prosecute someone when they know they've made mistakes, just to preserve their image and power. Or they may recklessly seek a criminal conviction just to satisfy the people's need for closure of a particularly heinous crime. One major problem lies in the political nature of many prosecutorial jobs - many are elected or appointed officials who must perform to political expectations rather than fairness. It might be said that prosecutors are not accountable to the ideal of justice. Nor are they interested in justice, but in in winning cases because the system is set up to reward them for quotas and the appearance of successful crime fighting. It's purely politics.

Plea-bargaining should be illegal because it thwarts justice by allowing the prosecutors and the criminals to compromise the validity of law, especially because it is done behind closed doors and not in an open court of law.

There's a symptom of moral decline in that people in positions of power (corporate, government) who are charged with crimes don't plead guilty, and if convicted, show no remorse. Is there a psychic disconnect in their heads? An inability to judge right from wrong? Their lawyers only want to get them acquitted and don't care if they're guilty or innocent. There's no sense of guilt or shame anymore. It appears that the moral game is what you can successfully get away with. Enron is a prime example.

TV has been the agent of propaganda for the police state. Cop shows don't promote an ideal of fairness, justice, freedom and responsible authority.

The system of fines for various misdemeanor violations hurts the poor far more than the rich. The rich can buy their way out of penalties by hiring lawyers. Sure, it may ultimately cost them more money, but because their legal records are cleared or at least the violations reduced, they are freed to break the law again with little negative consequence. They factor in violating the law as part of the cost of living. The court systems thrive on fines and court costs. For example, I was charged with speeding. The fine was $10, but court costs were $90! Because I didn't want my insurance premium to be raised for three years, I hired a lawyer for little more than twice the court costs to get the violation reduced. I saved a considerable amount of money. But what about a person who couldn't even afford the fine and court costs? They could face jail time and further loss of income or even job loss. So, the poor have to be more careful to obey the laws than the rich. This is the best example I know of how money buys justice. That is, if you believe this is justice. I don't. Ultimately, the winner in this game is the government that collects the money regardless of crime or justice.

Too much of law is decided by prejudice rather than logic or ethics or justice. Look back in our history at the Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised duly elected blacks from their legal offices during Reconstruction, and whose legacy lasted in law until the 1960s and lingers on today.

You should be able to legally boobytrap your property against criminal intrusion, if sufficent warning is posted, so as to protect the innocent. You should not be held liable for injuries sustained by trespassers on your property. Trespassers should be defined as anyone who has not been given prior permission to enter your property. Today, our rights are violated by laws that hold us liable if anyone is injured on our properties, even if they had no permission to be there. Thieves have successfully sued property owners for injuries sustained in the commission of crime. If this isn't a violation of morality, nothing is. Such laws breed lawlessness and irresponsiblity.

Americans can and should have rights to own guns, but not without some responsibility regarding dangerous weapons. Why shouldn't we be required to pass criminal background checks and written and field (firing range and safety) tests before we can own guns? We must do the same before we can drive a car, and few complain about that. This is the most reasonable solution that protects all of us.

Will the NRA lobby for your right to own a personal A-bomb? Where do we draw the line concerning reasonable private ownership of weapons? It should be obvious that weapons of mass destruction only belong under the aegis of the military with its strict protocols and procedures for use. They have no reasonable and responsible private use and are a potential danger to anyone within range.

Contents