The LeadEtics® Know-how to Create Success Through Improving Conditions Online Course

Clarification on the Bio-logic or the Fundamental Principle 107 on the Know-how of Justice

Justice can be defined as the means to bring about the equity, equalization, or balance of input and output of flows (cause and effect, action and reaction) that a person causes, on the one hand, and a person is an effect of, on the other.

While this fundamental principle is not a thesis on justice, it must be stressed that justice cannot be obtained in physical life. That we cannot achieve justice in life is one of the factors that closely approaches an absolute, an impossibility.

Due to factors, including the dynamics of the human mind, the effects of time, and the ever-changing spaces of the physical universe, nothing can be brought to equity, equalization, or harmony, especially when it comes to the most sensitive factor in human and group relations – justice.

For example, let us assume that Person A steals the car of Person B at Location A and Time X. Let us further assume that one second later (an impossible timespan, yes), the police apprehended Person B in Location C and promptly returned the stolen car to its rightful owner.

Do we dare to conclude that justice has been served to Persons A and B?

The best we could conclude is that justice was almost served because 1) the owner of the stolen car has lost one second of possession of their rightful property (we could even factor in a penalty fee imposed on Person B compensating Person A for the loss of enjoyment of their property) and this will not redress the loss, 2) the mental and emotional trauma suffered by the loss of the car, albeit for one second (this will resist every compensation as the mental and emotional trauma will linger and adhere to the personality of Person A, altering their personality and state of mind thereafter).

Restricting our analysis to the two factors above, we can conclude that the loss that Person A suffers will weigh more than the justice ‘served’.

Let us examine the condition of Person B. We will also find reasons why the injustice Person B meted out to Person A cannot be erased by the forceful and rightful reacquisition of the car by Person A through the agency of the police.

Justice can only be served wholesomely and effectively in the primary spaces where the impulse toward injustice and the strive for justice originate – the mind of the human being.

This is so because justice is a being-level impulse and factor, and we know that the human being operates or lives life through and in the mechanism of the mind, much more than physically. Mark this fact. You live life, see things, understand, think, etc., in your mind and not in the physical environment around you.

To every human being, the mind is the primary world, not the physical universe, not the things around us that we seemingly apprehend and affect us.

It is when the ever-sensitive and maddening factor of justice and injustice is addressed in the mental sphere of the related parties before meaningful justice can be obtained.

Within the groups, leaders and managers should embrace, design, codify, institute, and enforce the policy of equal justice and ethical administration for all its constituents, regardless of any other factors.

Leadership should also allow and encourage the expression of freedom of independent, interdependent, and/or dependent thought, communication, and/or emotion within the group, as long as these do not negate, reduce, derail, or attempt to destroy the vision or activities of the group.

The path of the scale of justice should be adhered to when designing and administering conflict resolution and criminal act review mechanisms.

The first stage of the scale of justice should be inter-disputants’ dispute or conflict resolution effort by way of negotiation without third-party interference. For this to work effectively, constituents of the group or society must be trained and encouraged to discuss issues that could lead to a dispute or conflict, or a dispute or conflict itself, openly and honestly with the other party.

Where inter-disputant efforts did not lead to a resolution, a third-party administered negotiation mechanism should be brought into effect by the agreement of the disputants.

In other words, potential disputants must be aware that if they lack the willingness or capacity to negotiate their own dispute or conflict to resolution, the option of a private, unenforced process can be initiated by them to seek resolution to the dispute or conflict using persons they trust within the group.

If this option fails, then the group’s mediation mechanism must be brought into effect. The mediation mechanism should follow the pattern established by national or international good practices. This will ensure an honest and comprehensive resolution of the dispute or conflict, while also maintaining the relationship between the disputants.

If mediation fails, the group must then open the avenue of arbitration with binding and final judgment. The justice administration procedure of the group should attempt to encourage and provide beneficial value to constituents to use the arbitration mechanism as the very last resort.

It is when the disputants or a disputant refuses the option of arbitration that the course of legal redress is justified and allowed. The pain and cost of engaging in litigation are such that they cannot be equated to the ‘victory’ or award that a party may achieve.

Broadly speaking, even if the issue at stake is criminal in nature (murder, armed robbery, corrupt practices, etc.), engaging in the justice scale from the beginning should resolve it if the justice system is carefully crafted and administered.

It is a wonder that in criminal justice administration, the state usurped the legal rights of the victims (or relations) of a crime.

The ‘criminal justice system’ also does nothing to provide compensation to the victims or their relatives, either directly or from the convicted criminal as part of the sentence.

Neither does the system (as the government) provide any recompense for what could be termed ‘criminal negligence’ or irresponsibility in providing ‘protection of lives and property’ functions, for which the victims were paying the government in the form of taxation.

Either way, the state continues to show no responsibility.

“Bringing criminals to justice or to book” or whatever is NOT enough. The government must take more responsibility and compensate the victims of criminal actions committed by those citizens whom the government has made into criminals through their sheer incompetence and sometimes deliberate actions. This should apply particularly to victims who are taxpayers or have been legally deprived of their wealth.

We are aware of the trauma that the court/justice system has on litigants: loss of work hours, money, image, influence, depressed emotional, and sanity levels, etc. In many cases, serial murderers, rapists, powerful and influential economic criminals, terrorists, etc., often go unpunished or are ‘inadequately punished’ for their heinous crimes.

Of course, the legal system is crafted in such a manner that real justice need not be done insofar as the law has had its course.

One is apt to wonder at the course of the law where ‘honest, die-hard criminals’ are put back on the streets or even left to run for and win public elections.

The LeadEtics® Know-how to Create Success Through Improving Conditions Online Course Evaluation Form