|
24 February, 2005 - 5:14 p.m. - Justice Meanwhile, there's this dedicated and truly idealistic group of prosecutors and the like who are determined to bring the supposed war criminals to justice, despite vague, incomplete, and even false testimony. They are, as the segment points out, a group of outsiders (many of whom are American) who just don't understand the culture, history, or politics of the region, and yet they're charged with Bringing Criminals to Justice. I'm pretty sure i brought this up ages ago, maybe after 9/11, but i have to ask again now: What exactly is justice? Is there some ideal, objective state of justice that we can actually strive toward, or is justice always and absolutely subjective? And if it's subjective, where do you stop? Do you have to take in the whole of a state's--or, let's bring this down to a more manageable level, a person's--history, environment, culture, psychological state, parentage, etc. into consideration? Do you have to go back, in the case of Yugoslavia, to the day the first human set foot on the land? In the case of crime on a personal level, do you have to examine the childhoods of both victim and perpetrator, and the circumstances that brought them together? And even if you know all this, can you ever really have a reasonably good solution appropriate to all the circumstances? |