Karadzic his court case at the tribunal in The Hague is progressing so slowly… and is interrupted all the time, sometimes for months … contrary to Saddam Hussein who was disposed in a hurry . Are we losing justice along the track?
Is there and advantage in the slow turning wheels of justice? Will the hurried verdict of Saddam Hussein who was captured in December 2003 – being in hiding for nine months – and executed exactly three years later in december 2006, leave more doubts than the process of Radovan Karadzic who was arrested in July 2008 – after being at large for twelve years – and is now still tried by the court?
Quick justice may be satisfying but tends to leave doubts in the long run. Slow justice is often experienced as an evasion of the trial process, but may provide the necessary opportunities for defence by the the person being indicted and thus leave less space for doubt in the end.
What a false dichotomy! Simplistic on so many levels. ever hear of “justice delayed is justice denied”? being in purgatory is hardly positive. I guess when you are blind to seeing the lack of validity in the very idea of justice (ie that there is some possible ‘just’ scenario), these are the kind of pitiful alley’s one finds one self in.
Comparing any two things of a different order needs ‘simplicity’ as a tool and the outcome will not be “a correct dichotomy’, as the parts are opposed. Or do you mean that my two examples are exactly the same and so making a dichotomy here can not be done? Exactly how much time does ‘justice’ need in your opinion?
Would you consider to look back at the Nurnberg and Tokyo trials after World War II and take in account that some of the perpetrated violence issues could have been handled in other ways, for instance also taking in account the allied mass bombing and targeting of civilian populations? It would have meant a delay in the proceedings, but would certainly have helped the idea of ‘justice’. Last take as an exampel the hurried justice of say the Ceauşescu couple in Rumania was that not “justice executed, injustice done”? Beyond any doubt… is in my view an essential part of justice and that may take in reality a lot of time….
“Would you consider to look back at the Nurnberg and Tokyo trials after World War II and take in account that some of the perpetrated violence issues could have been handled in other ways”
Ok, so I think when you say is “handled in other ways” you’re actually asking “handled in better ways”….and if that’s the case, then well one has to weigh up the purported benefits (which if I get you right, means ‘justice’) compared to the expansion of aparatus which in a different context caused said injustices, violence, etc….
I don’t really understand how in creating (or expanding, or both) institutional apparatus, how once its there, one could reasonably expect it would ONLY be used in the (originally) intended way? Even less so, that what is being ‘constructed’ is actually what one thinks it is…
As to your questions:
– I don’t think there actually is such a thing as ‘justice’ other than some arbitrary, personal (subjective) interpretation. It’s not necessarily an issue to have an opinion about what are better/worse outcomes given particular objectives, but I think the concept of ‘justice’ is a shortcut, bypassing using reason with preconceived notions of how things “ought to be”. On that basis, how much time does ‘justice’ need is a bit meaningless to me. If you’d ask something like “how can the built up resentment, trauma, etc be reduced so as to allow those involved to not be enslaved to it (or be in danger of suffering teh causes of rseentment/trauma/etc)” then that might be a more useful question.
– “justice executed, injustice done” – maybe that’s because the discourse of ‘justice’ is always dominated by those with more power, and so it just becomes a label to be leveraged like any other monopoly?
–
It seems to me that kind of thinking is what brings about the violence, ‘injustice’ and so on…