Also, justice, in and of itself, is compassionate. First, to the victims of crime and to their loved ones. And second, to the criminal: How can you become a better human being if you don’t first recognize that you’ve done something wrong?
Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.
“Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group … and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force – and Statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.”
“The absolute state is merely an institutionalized form of gang-rule, regardless of which particular gang seizes power.”
Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
Perhaps he saw wisdom in Barry Goldwater’s famous line, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
“When misuse of power has reached a certain stage, the divinity that is within the people asserts its right and they free themselves from the power of despotism.”
To be wealthy and honored in an unjust society is a disgrace.
Recompense hatred with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness.
No one should believe that any judge is entirely free of ideological bias, but there is a profound difference between judges who approach a legal conflict with the question, “What does the Constitution mean?” and those who instead ask, “What does justice demand?”
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But as a consequence of being perfectly just, there are some things God cannot do. He cannot be arbitrary in saving some and banishing others. He “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” He cannot allow mercy to rob justice.
We rely on the divine quality of justice for faith, confidence, and hope.
“That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
The Father’s plan of mercy7—what the scriptures also call the plan of happiness8 or the plan of salvation9—could not be accomplished unless all the demands of justice were satisfied.
Again, what would justice have required of Alma? As Alma himself later taught, “No unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God.”14 Thus, part of Alma’s relief must have been that unless mercy interceded, justice would have prevented him from returning to live with Heavenly Father.15
As President Boyd K. Packer once taught: “The thought that rescued Alma … is this: Restoring what you cannot restore, healing the wound you cannot heal, fixing that which you broke and you cannot fix is the very purpose of the atonement of Christ.”17 The joyous truth on which Alma’s mind “caught hold” was not just that he himself could be made clean but also that those whom he had harmed could be healed and made whole.
King Benjamin declared that “glad tidings of great joy” were given him “by an angel from God.”18 Among those glad tidings was the truth that Christ would suffer and die for our sins and mistakes to ensure that “a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men.”19 What exactly does a “righteous judgment” require? In the next verse, King Benjamin explained that to ensure a righteous judgment, the Savior’s blood atoned “for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam” and for those “who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.”20 A righteous judgment also required, he taught, that “the blood of Christ atoneth for” the sins of little children.21 These scriptures teach a glorious doctrine: the Savior’s atoning sacrifice heals, as a free gift, those who sin in ignorance—those to whom, as Jacob put it, “there is no law given.”22 Accountability for sin depends on the light we have been given and hinges on our ability to exercise our agency.23 We know this healing and comforting truth only because of the Book of Mormon and other Restoration scripture.24 Of course, where there is a law given, where we are not ignorant of the will of God, we are accountable. As King Benjamin emphasized: “Wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.”25 This too is glad tidings of the doctrine of Christ. Not only does the Savior heal and restore those who sin in ignorance, but also, for those who sin against the light, the Savior offers healing on the condition of repentance and faith in Him.26
Although we do not fully understand the sacred mechanics by which the Savior’s atoning sacrifice heals and restores, we do know that to ensure a righteous judgment, the Savior will clear away the underbrush of ignorance and the painful thorns of hurt caused by others.28 By this He ensures that all God’s children will be given the opportunity, with unobscured vision, to choose to follow Him and accept the great plan of happiness.29
As any parent can testify, the pain associated with our mistakes is not simply the fear of our own punishment but the fear that we may have limited our children’s joy or in some way hindered them from seeing and understanding the truth. The glorious promise of the Savior’s atoning sacrifice is that as far as our mistakes as parents are concerned, He holds our children blameless and promises healing for them.30 And even when they have sinned against the light—as we all do—His arm of mercy is outstretched,31 and He will redeem them if they will but look to Him and live.32
Although the Savior has power to mend what we cannot fix, He commands us to do all we can to make restitution as part of our repentance.33 Our sins and mistakes displace not only our relationship with God but also our relationships with others. Sometimes our efforts to heal and restore may be as simple as an apology, but other times restitution may require years of humble effort.34 Yet, for many of our sins and mistakes, we simply are not able to fully heal those we have hurt. The magnificent, peace-giving promise of the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel is that the Savior will mend all that we have broken.35 And He will also mend us if we turn to Him in faith and repent of the harm we have caused.36 He offers both of these gifts because He loves all of us with perfect love37 and because He is committed to ensuring a righteous judgment that honors both justice and mercy.
Parents in our situation often lament their lack of influence. We wonder how we can help our loved ones “want to change.” I learned from Moroni that this is the wrong question. The right question is, “What am I doing that is keeping my child from wanting to change?” The most potent lesson Moroni offers parents is that when we stand between our child and justice, we often stand between our child and God.
Don't envy sinners---have mercy on them. God will destroy them.
...Melancholy and awful that so many are under the condemnation of the devil and going to perdition.... they should be cast out from this Society, yet we should woo them to return to God lest they escape not the damnation of hell!
“Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.“
“I wish nothing but good; therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor and a scoundrel.”
“When the unhappy and deluded multitude, against whom this force will be directed, shall become sensible of their error, I shall be ready to receive the misled with tenderness and mercy!”
“L'état c'est moi.” … “I am the State.” Alternative translation: “It is legal because I wish it.”
Jesus Christ did not come to find fault, criticize, or blame. He came to build up, edify, and save (see Luke 9:56). However, His compassion does not nullify His expectation that we be fully responsible and never try to minimize or justify sin. “For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (D&C 1:31; see also Alma 45:16). If the Lord cannot look upon sin with even the least degree of allowance, what law of the gospel demands complete and full responsibility for sin? That would be the law of justice.
The danger of the anti-responsibility list consists in the fact that it blinds its victims to the need for repentance. Laman and Lemuel, for example, didn’t see a need to repent because it was all Nephi’s fault. “If it’s not my fault, why should I repent?” The one blinded can’t even take the first step in the repentance process, which is to recognize the need for repentance.
By relying on the law of Moses—an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth—rather than on the law of the gospel, including forgiving and praying for one’s enemies, Dantès imposed a life sentence of misery and bitterness upon himself. In denying the Lord’s justice for others, he unwittingly denied the Lord’s mercy for himself and chose to serve the sentence that Christ had already served in his behalf. It robbed him of a life of happiness that could have been his but for the want of revenge.
Even though the wife may understand the law of justice, what she is feeling is the need for justice now. Elder Neal A. Maxwell wisely taught that “faith in God includes faith in His purposes as well as in His timing. We cannot fully accept Him while rejecting His schedule.”8 Elder Maxwell also said, “The gospel guarantees ultimate, not proximate, justice.”9 “Behold, mine eyes see and know all their works, and I have in reserve a swift judgment in the season thereof, for them all” (D&C 121:24).
Until the abused woman can turn justice over to the Lord, she will likely continue to experience feelings of anger—which are a form of negative devotion toward her abuser—and this traps her in a recurring nightmare. President George Albert Smith referred to this as “cherish[ing] an improper influence.”12 With her husband having hurt her so deeply, why would the wife allow him to continue victimizing her by haunting her thoughts? Hasn’t she suffered enough? Not forgiving her abuser allows him to mentally torment her over and over and over. Forgiving him doesn’t set him free; it sets her free.
Part of understanding forgiveness is to understand what it is not: Forgiving her abusive husband does not excuse or condone his cruelty. Forgiving does not mean forgetting his brutality; you cannot unremember or erase a memory that is so traumatic. Forgiving does not mean that justice is being denied, because mercy cannot rob justice. Forgiving does not erase the injury he has caused, but it can begin to heal the wounds and ease the pain. Forgiving does not mean trusting him again and giving him yet another chance to abuse her and the children. While to forgive is a commandment, trust has to be earned and evidenced by good behavior over time, which he clearly has not demonstrated. Forgiving does not mean forgiveness of his sins. Only the Lord can do that, based upon sincere repentance.
These are things that forgiveness does not mean. What forgiveness does mean is to forgive the husband’s foolishness—even his stupidity—in succumbing to the impulses of the natural man and at the same time still hope that he will yet yield “to the enticings of the Holy Spirit” (Mosiah 3:19). Forgiveness does not mean giving him another chance to abuse, but it does mean giving him another chance at the plan of salvation.
It is also helpful if the wife understands “that we are punished by our sins and not for them.”13 She then recognizes that her abuser has inflicted far more eternal damage upon himself than temporal damage upon her. And even in the present, his true happiness and joy diminish in inverse proportion to his increased wickedness, because “wickedness never was happiness” (Alma 41:10). He is to be pitied for the sorrowful and precarious situation he is in. Knowing that he is sinking in spiritual quicksand might begin to change her desire for justice—which is already occurring—to a hope that he will repent before it is too late. With this understanding she might even begin to pray for the one who has despitefully abused her.
at some point the full, excruciating guilt of every sin we commit must be felt. Justice demands it, and God Himself cannot change it.
Alma’s imagery reflects the sobering reality that at some point the full, excruciating guilt of every sin we commit must be felt. Justice demands it, and God Himself cannot change it.
[The positivist theory of justice claims that] “Unjust acts are those prohibited by positive law; just acts are those prescribed by it. ... Spelled out, this means that what is just or unjust is determined solely by whoever has the power to lay down the law of the land. … It also leads to a corollary which inexorably attaches itself to that conclusion – that might makes right. This is the very essence of absolute or despotic government.”
“According to this view, the criteria of what is just or unjust… Acts, policies, and laws are just to the extent that they serve and promote the general welfare or the common good; unjust to the extent that they detract from it.”
“Being by nature equal (in kind), they are all endowed by nature with certain unalienable rights, unalienable because they are inherent in man’s specific nature, not merely bestowed upon man by legal enactment. Legal enactment may be necessary to secure these rights, but it does not constitute their unalienability.”
“Our natural needs are the basis for distinguishing between the real goods to which we have a natural right and the apparent goods to which we do not have a natural right. That is the acquirement of which we may be privileged on condition that our seeking them does not interfere with anyone else’s acquirement of real goods.”
“Man too is a social animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. … A political community is a society that is thus constituted. Being political in nature means that man by nature needs political liberty – the freedom of an enfranchised citizen. This is the basis of man’s entitlement, by natural right, to political liberty. Deprived of political liberty, as slaves are or as the subjects of a despot no matter how benevolent, human beings cannot fulfill their natural propensities and lead fully human lives. They are deprived of a real good to which they are naturally entitled.”
Mortimer Adler: “Are there any grounds to justify the disenfranchisement of human beings who are by nature political animals? Infancy, mental disablement, and criminality. Criminal behavior justifies a deprivation of political liberty, as well as liberty of action. The criminal, by his own behavior, has himself forfeited the exercise of a right that is unalienably his as a human being.”
When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.
Nothing is to be preferred before justice
It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.
Let the punishments of criminals be useful. A hanged man is good for nothing; a man condemned to public works still serves the country, and is a living lesson.
THREE THEORIES DEFINING JUSTICE (1) POSITIVE LAW: The proper role of government is to establish justice by enforcing the LAWS of the society. (2) SOCIAL GOOD: The proper role of government is to establish justice by promoting the SOCIAL GOOD of society. (3) NATURAL RIGHTS: The proper role of government is to establish justice by securing the NATURAL RIGHTS of the citizens.
According to the positive law theory of justice, justice is conformity to the law. There is a hidden philosophical pitfall in this because it means whatever is legal ... justifies the use of coercive force on the part of the government to enforce the laws. Q: What happens if the legal system makes it legal to disenfranchise part of society (such as the Nuremberg Laws, or Jim crow laws, or the Missouri extermination order)? Q: If the law does it to any one minority segment of society what's to stop it from doing it to anyone else?
Positivist Primacy Issues The primacy issues are State over the Individual, That Laws (regardless if they are good or evil) determine Justice, and Might makes Right. This displays the outlook of absolute dictators who represent the full might of the state invested into a single person.
Divine Right of Kings One form of this theory is "The Divine Right of Kings" which is the idea that the King not only is above the law, but that the “King is the law”. You could substitute any modern absolute dictator in the place of Kings and the idea is the same.
The problem is the "isms"…Utilitarianism, Socialism, Collectivism, Statism which all logically end up requiring brute force for their actual implementation. These "isms" are not compatible with individual natural rights. They all derive from The Primacy of Consciousness. In this case it is the collective consciousness of the overall society.
The Social Good Theory of Justice justifies the use of coercive force on the part of the government based on the notion of utility. This means statistically serving the greatest good for the greatest number irrespective to the cost to any one particular individual. That is, the individual can be and often must be sacrificed to the greater good of the collective. Many horrible things can be and have been done to individuals in the name of the "so called" greater good of society.
Karl Marx was upfront and honest about the cost and means of implementing collectivism. Marx theorized that the only way to create a better, utopian society, was to completely destroy the current corrupt version of selfish capitalist ideals and rebuild society anew from the ashes.
Ayn Rand succinctly summarized this theory of justice. It doesn't matter which gang is in charge, collectivism is just mob rule.
American Patriots during the American Revolutionary War were Naturalists while the American Loyalists were Positivists. The divisive issue was, of course, whether the “The king is the law” or the “The law is king.” The introductory paragraph to the Declaration of Independence is philosophical combat against the ideology of the divine right of kings, justifying in the eyes of the world a revolution based on Natural Rights philosophy.
The founding fathers knew they were going against the whole world at the time who believed that by God's will, "the King is the law". They knew that if they were going to get individuals to join their cause and persuade other nations to accept them as a new nation, they had to have a better theory of justice to justify their revolt. The Declaration of Independence is philosophical warning shot against the whole world. The American Founding Fathers, based the revolution logically on the revolutionary idea that natural law (not the king) gives rise to natural rights and that individual liberties are independent of any other authority.
Unalienable means the majority can't vote them away, individuals cannot contract them away, nor can anyone give the these rights away. Unalienable means "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor" (Google Dictionary)
These rights are based on "equality of kind" of all human beings…That is: all human beings have the same limited set of very specific needs. It is crucial to distinguish real goods based on universal human needs, compared to "apparent goods" based merely on human wants. Mixing up real needs verses apparent wants is the source of much of modern societies mistaken idea of multiplying rights that aren't really rights.
Because of the social nature inherent in mankind, we are all entitled to political liberty.
By their nature, infants and the mentally disabled are not capable of exercising some of their natural rights (such as political enfranchisement, liberty, property rights, etc.). As they progress to adulthood however, and gain adult capacity, their increase in capacity is accompanied by an increase in these natural rights. Criminals by their own actions forfeit natural rights. This is their own doing, not the doing of the State. The Natural Right Definition of Justice - justifies the use of coercive force on the part of the government in ensuring, securing, respecting, and protecting to the individual his life, liberty, property and inalienable rights from those who would trample on them.
When the misuse of power has reached a certain stage, mankind has a right to reclaim their rights. This is one reason why without Justice, God would cease to be God. Free agency is a part of the reality within us. It is part of our divine natures. God must uphold it or there are real consequences.
Consider the American Revolution. It was founded with the motivating principle of Liberty…With a foundation in the Natural Rights definition of Justice. That is: The individual has primacy over the collective, that rights determine justice, and individual liberty has primacy over equality. Symbols such as the Liberty Bell aesthetically represent this revolution. Part of the inscription on the bell reads from Leviticus 25:10 "Proclaim LIBERTY Throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants Thereof…" The toll of the bell symbolizes the voice of freedom broadcast openly and uninhibited, to all the independent inhabitants of the land. The Bell rang when the Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence and then again on July 8, 1776, to invite the citizens of Philadelphia for the reading of the Declaration of Independence.
The French Revolution and Russian revolutions both share the motivating principle of equality. Consequently, these Revolutions were not fought on a basis of Natural Rights, and the outcome was very different.
Symbols such as the Guillotine represent the bloody French Revolution. During the "Reign of Terror", 1793–94, an estimated 40,000 were Guillotined. The motto for the French revolution proclaims "liberty, equality and fraternity, (i.e., egalitarianism)" with rights and justice not even mentioned. While the American Revolution gave primacy to Liberty over Equality, the French Revolution gave primacy to Equality over Liberty.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
“Utilitarianism is an ethical and philosophical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, which is usually defined as that which produces the greatest well-being of the greatest number of people. … Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action, minus the suffering of anyone involved in the action.”