The word justice suggests a kind of fairness and equality in front of an adjudicating or judging body. Justice is not limited to civil and criminal courts, or allegations of wrong doing, instead it is about maxmizing each individuals freedom, by resolving conflicts caused by the use and abuse of freedom. In the past I have noted that society should attempt to tolerate as much possible, unless an action cause substantial harm to involuntary participants. To me, substantial harm to non-voluntary participants is where adjudication needs to step in and fairly decide what is generally intolerable substainal harm to involuntary participants.

In keeping with this theme, I see a very limited role for various adjudicating bodies. A good adjudicating body should set standards for review-worthiness before even considering to adjudicating a matter. If there is no substantial harm to involuntary participatents, then the adjudicating body has no role in limiting personal or communal freedoms. To a degree all modern bureaucratic insitutions have these protections, providing written rules and sanctions for violating the written rules.

Having clear written rules is not going to guarantee justice. Written rules that merely codify pratices or violations do not neccessarly consider if an action causes substainal harm to involuntary participants. I would hope that all rules consider the impact of an action, and then try to tolerate it if at all possible, but I know that rarely is the case in our society. People dislike change and want to enforce conformity, they do not want to tolerate. Many of the most biogeted and racist people I have met, likely consider them to be very tolerant of all groups. Those groups are limited to a selected preferred minority that have desirable characteristics or actions (sometimes created through guilt).

Justice needs to consider all aspects of an intolerable action. It needs to look beyond the statutory law, and consider the irrational aspects, such as the proposed individual or group motivations for the intolerable act, and why such a condition exists that fostures or continues the action. If society is to be blame, the adjudicating body should have the power to change society in ways that prevent further intolerable acts.

Finally, I justice is not something decided by a court, not even a supreme court. Just because a court decides something is legal or consitutional, does not mean it moral or even right. Sometimes legal scholars are careful to note this difference, but other times public opinion seems to suggest that if an action is legal or consitutional it must be moral or right. There is a great difference, and to blindly support a court and it's decisions would absurd.

There are many more aspects of justice not covered here. My idea is not to definatively define justice, but to examine a few aspects and open some more questions for you to answer for yourself.