Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105709)	3/24/2005 8:56:17 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793698

,it feels to me that the only thing these appellate courts have been concerned with is PROCESS important though that may be our judicial system should be about ultimately be about JUSTICE Good point. But what is important to understand is that, for the government, justice IS process. That's why they talk about "due process." If you think about it enough, you realize that, while imperfect, that's the only way it can be. Let me give you an example from my experience, a simple scenario. Consider a performance management system in the workplace. You can ask any employee what justice means in that context and he would tell you that it's him getting an outstanding rating and a big bonus and his nemesis get his comeuppance. Obviously, in that scenario, everyone can't get what he considers justice. So fairness comes to be defined as setting up a process with standards, rules, and an appeal mechanism and insuring that the process is followed meticulously. I, personally, found that hard to get my head around because apparent errors occur, but I can't come up with an alternative. We sure don't want everything to be done arbitrarily and ad hoc. That might result in better justice in isolated cases, but it does not optimize justice overall, plus it would result in lots of big time injustice. This way at least everyone knows the rules and that they will be applied consistently. That's as close as societies can get to perfect justice.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105709)	3/24/2005 9:07:35 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Respond to of 793698

Bravo! Very well said.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (105709)	3/24/2005 10:04:11 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793698

You can manage justice and compassion on a scale of about 200 people or less - about the number you can know personally. When you are dealing with 250 million people, process is the best you can hope for. This is why we have to be so careful about passing responsibility up.