4 ms·

I think the courts are meant to settle disputes quickly, not justly. The appearance of swift justice.

• chongli 4y ago
  Read Plato's Republic. Justice is an extremely fraught concept that has been debated for millennia. The ultimate purpose of courts is to keep society running smoothly, not uphold justice. Justice can never really be upheld because people disagree on its definition. That would be like trying to get everyone to agree on the best ice cream flavour.
• DannyBee 4y ago
  Justice is not a well shared concept, so that's basically impossible anyway. Beyond that, this is actually right. For civil disputes, the main historical goal has always been compensation for injuries/damages. That's it. Speed is actually a goal because you want people to be put back into a good place as fast as possible. Otherwise, the goal of a number is reasonable. Not perfect. Just reasonable. Again, it's a dispute resolving system. One that was mainly meant to be used when all other forms of negotiation/mediation fail. So it was not meant as a system of first resort, it's a system of last resort. Trying to use it for social change/et al is a relatively new concept. The ability for a corporation or whatever to cause widespread injury to a large class of people is a relatively new thing. As a result, mass torts were historically uncommon, etc. Like maybe a building fell down or something, but even if someone sued someone else because all their cattle died after their neighbor seemed to put something in the water didn't affect (and couldn't be detected to affect) anywhere near as many people as happens now.
  • thrwawy74 4y ago
    Thanks for articulating this. I hadn't thought about how using the courts for social change is a relatively new thing (maybe since the civil rights act in the ~60s).