The Justice website contains resources for legal professionals. You can find out about the Ministry of Justice and the justice system on GOV. Theory of Justice” criminal justice a brief introduction 11th edition pdf here.
Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice issues from God. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence, Plato’s definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one’s own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses’ power is directed by the charioteer. If one is ill, one goes to a medic rather than a farmer, because the medic is expert in the subject of health.
Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice, and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command of God. Murder is wrong and must be punished, for instance, because God says it so. Some versions of the theory assert that God must be obeyed because of the nature of his relationship with humanity, others assert that God must be obeyed because he is goodness itself, and thus doing what he says would be best for everyone. Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God? God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge. God, and there is necessarily reflected in His commands.
In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton’s laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, principles, religions, etc. This account is considered further below, under ‘Justice as fairness’. So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, or the feeling of self-defense and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another’s place, sympathy.
So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them. On the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no “favored distribution. This section describes some widely held theories of distributive justice, and their attempts to answer these questions. According to the egalitarian, justice can exist only within the parameters of equality. Egalitarian theories are typically less concerned with discussing who exactly will do the distributing or what effects their recommended policies will have on the production of the goods, services, or resources they wish to distribute.
Some variants of egalitarianism affirm that justice without equality is hollow and that equality itself is the highest justice, though such a formulation will have concrete meaning only once the main terms have been fleshed out. At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. We don’t know who in particular we are, and therefore can’t bias the decision in our own favour.
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. In one sense, theories of distributive justice may assert that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories disagree on the meaning of what is “deserved”. If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn’t have or need is irrelevant.