In criminal law, guilt is the state of being responsible for the commission of an offense. Legal guilt is externally defined by the state, or more a "court of law". Being "guilty" of a criminal offense means that one has committed a violation of criminal law, or performed all the elements of the offense set out by a criminal statute; the determination that one has committed that violation is made by an external body and is, therefore, as definitive as the record-keeping of the body. So the most basic definition is fundamentally circular: a person is guilty of violating a law, if a court says so. Philosophically, guilt in criminal law is a reflection of a functioning society and its ability to condemn individuals' actions, it rests fundamentally on a presumption of free will, in which individuals choose actions and are, subjected to external judgement of the rightness or wrongness of those actions. An adjudication of guilt is more than a factual determination that the defendant pulled a trigger, took a bicycle, or sold heroin.
It is a moral judgment. Our collective conscience does not allow punishment. Our concept of blameworthiness rests on assumptions that are older than the Republic: man is endowed with these two great faculties and liberty of will. Our substantive criminal law is based on a theory of punishing the viscious will, it postulates a free agent confronted with a choice between doing right and wrong, choosing to do wrong. See Cotton, Michael, A FOOLISH CONSISTENCY: KEEPING DETERMINISM OUT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW, 15 B. U. Pub. Int. L. J. 1 "Guilt" is the obligation of a person who has violated a moral standard to bear the sanctions imposed by that moral standard. In legal terms, guilt means having been found to have violated a criminal law, though law raises'the issue of defences, the mitigation of offences, the defeasibility of claims'. Les Parrott draws a three-fold distinction between "objective or legal guilt, which occurs when society's laws have been broken... social guilt... an unwritten law of social expectation", the way "personal guilt occurs when someone compromises one's own standards".
Guilt can sometimes be remedied by: punishment. Guilt can be remedied through intellectualisation or cognition. Helping other people can help relieve guilt feelings: "thus guilty people are helpful people... helping, like receiving an external reward, seemed to get people feeling better". There are the so-called "Don Juans of achievement... who pay the installments due their superego not by suffering but by achievements.... Since no achievement succeeds in undoing the unconscious guilt, these persons are compelled to run from one achievement to another". Law does not accept the agent's self-punishment, but some ancient codes did: in Athens, the accused could propose their own remedy, which could, in fact, be a reward, while the accuser proposed another, the jury chose something in-between; this forced the accused to bet on his support in the community, as Socrates did when he proposed "room and board in the town hall" as his fate. He drank hemlock, a poison, as advised by his accuser. Culpability Erinyes Malum in se Malum prohibitum "Guilt in Think On These Things".
Archived from the original on January 17, 2006. Retrieved 2006-02-16. By Gary Gilley "The Innocent Bear the Guilt for the Guilty Ones". Retrieved 2007-05-10. By Gerd Altendorff translation by Jochen Reiss Learnt or innate Guilt on In Our Time at the BBC
Civil law (legal system)
Civil law, or civilian law, is a legal system originating in Europe, intellectualized within the framework of Roman law, the main feature of, that its core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law. This can be contrasted with common law systems, the intellectual framework of which comes from judge-made decisional law, gives precedential authority to prior court decisions, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. A civil law is the group of legal ideas and systems derived from the Corpus Juris Civilis, but overlaid by Napoleonic, canonical and local practices, as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law and legal positivism. Conceptually, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules, it holds case law subordinate to statutory law. Civil law is paired with the inquisitorial system, but the terms are not synonymous.
There are key differences between a codal article. The most pronounced features of civil systems are their legal codes, with brief legal texts that avoid factually specific scenarios; the short articles in a civil law code deal in generalities and stand in contrast with statutory systems, which are very long and detailed. The purpose of codification is to provide all citizens with manners and written collection of the laws which apply to them and which judges must follow, it is the most widespread system of law in the world, in force in various forms in about 150 countries. It draws from Roman law, arguably the most intricate known legal system dating from before the modern era. Where codes exist, the primary source of law is the law code, a systematic collection of interrelated articles, arranged by subject matter in some pre-specified order, that explain the principles of law and entitlements, how basic legal mechanisms work. Law codes are laws enacted by a legislature if they are in general much longer than other laws.
Other major legal systems in the world include common law, Islamic law and canon law. Civil law countries can be divided into: those where Roman law in some form is still living law but there has been no attempt to create a civil code: Andorra and San Marino those with uncodified mixed systems in which civil law is an academic source of authority but common law is influential: Scotland and the Roman-Dutch law countries those with codified mixed systems in which civil law is the background law but has its public law influenced by common law: Puerto Rico, Philippines and Louisiana those with comprehensive codes that exceed a single civil code, such as France, Greece, Japan, Russia, Spain: it is this last category, regarded as typical of civil law systems, is discussed in the rest of this article; the Scandinavian systems are of a hybrid character since their background law is a mix of civil law and Scandinavian customary law and they have been codified. The laws of the Channel Islands mix Norman customary law and French civil law.
A prominent example of a civil-law is the Napoleonic Code, named after French emperor Napoleon. The code comprises three components: the law of persons property law commercial lawRather than a compendium of statutes or catalog of case law, the code sets out general principles as rules of law. Unlike common law systems, civil law jurisdictions deal with case law apart from any precedent value. Civil law courts decide cases using codal provisions on a case-by-case basis, without reference to other judicial decisions. In actual practice, an increasing degree of precedent is creeping into civil law jurisprudence, is seen in many nations' highest courts. While the typical French-speaking supreme court decision is short and devoid of explanation or justification, in Germanic Europe, the supreme courts can and do tend to write more verbose opinions, supported by legal reasoning. A line of similar case decisions, while not precedent per se, constitute jurisprudence constante. While civil law jurisdictions place little reliance on court decisions, they tend to generate a phenomenal number of reported legal opinions.
However, this tends to be uncontrolled, since there is no statutory requirement that any case be reported or published in a law report, except for the councils of state and constitutional courts. Except for the highest courts, all publication of legal opinions are commercial. Civil law is sometimes referred to Romano-Germanic law or Continental law; the expression "civil law" is a translation of Latin jus civile, or "citizens' law", the late imperial term for its legal system, as opposed to the laws governing conquered peoples. Civil law practitioners, traditionally refer to their system in a broad sense as jus commune "common law", meaning the general principles of law as opposed to laws specific to particular areas. Civil law takes as its major inspiration classical Roman law, in particular Justinian law, further expanded and developed in the late Middle Ages under the influence of canon law; the Justinian Code's doctrines provided a sophisticated model for contracts, rules of procedure, family law, a strong monarchical constitu
Evil, in a general sense, is the opposite or absence of good. It can be an broad concept, though in everyday usage is used more narrowly to denote profound wickedness, it is seen as taking multiple possible forms, such as the form of personal moral evil associated with the word, or impersonal natural evil, in religious thought, the form of the demonic or supernatural/eternal. Evil can denote profound immorality, but not without some basis in the understanding of the human condition, where strife and suffering are the true roots of evil. In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force. Definitions of evil vary. Elements that are associated with personal forms of evil involve unbalanced behavior involving anger, fear, psychological trauma, selfishness, destruction or neglect. Evil is sometimes perceived as the dualistic antagonistic binary opposite to good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated. In cultures with Buddhist spiritual influence, both good and evil are perceived as part of an antagonistic duality that itself must be overcome through achieving Nirvana.
The philosophical questions regarding good and evil are subsumed into three major areas of study: Meta-ethics concerning the nature of good and evil, Normative ethics concerning how we ought to behave, Applied ethics concerning particular moral issues. While the term is applied to events and conditions without agency, the forms of evil addressed in this article presume an evildoer or doers; some religions and philosophies deny evil's usefulness in describing people. The modern English word evil and its cognates such as the German Übel and Dutch euvel are considered to come from a Proto-Germanic reconstructed form of *ubilaz, comparable to the Hittite huwapp- from the Proto-Indo-European form *wap- and suffixed zero-grade form *up-elo-. Other Germanic forms include Middle English evel, ufel, Old Frisian evel, Old Saxon ubil, Old High German ubil, Gothic ubils; the root meaning of the word is of obscure origin though shown to be akin to modern German Das Übel with the basic idea of transgressing.
Main: Confucian Ethics and Taoist EthicsAs with Buddhism, in Confucianism or Taoism there is no direct analogue to the way good and evil are opposed although reference to demonic influence is common in Chinese folk religion. Confucianism's primary concern is with correct social relationships and the behavior appropriate to the learned or superior man, thus evil would correspond to wrong behavior. Still less does it map into Taoism, in spite of the centrality of dualism in that system, but the opposite of the cardinal virtues of Taoism, compassion and humility can be inferred to be the analogue of evil in it. Benedict de Spinoza states 1. By good, I understand that which we know is useful to us. 2. By evil, on the contrary, I understand that which we know hinders us from possessing anything, good. Spinoza assumes a quasi-mathematical style and states these further propositions which he purports to prove or demonstrate from the above definitions in part IV of his Ethics: Proposition 8 "Knowledge of good or evil is nothing but affect of joy or sorrow in so far as we are conscious of it."
Proposition 30 "Nothing can be evil through that which it possesses in common with our nature, but in so far as a thing is evil to us it is contrary to us." Proposition 64 "The knowledge of evil is inadequate knowledge." Corollary "Hence it follows that if the human mind had none but adequate ideas, it would form no notion of evil." Proposition 65 "According to the guidance of reason, of two things which are good, we shall follow the greater good, of two evils, follow the less." Proposition 68 "If men were born free, they would form no conception of good and evil so long as they were free." Friedrich Nietzsche, in a rejection of Judeo-Christian morality, addresses this in two works Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morals where he says that the natural, functional non-good has been transformed into the religious concept of evil by the slave mentality of the weak and oppressed masses who resent their masters. Carl Jung, in his book Answer to Job and elsewhere, depicted evil as the dark side of God.
People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project their shadow onto others. Jung interpreted the story of Jesus as an account of God facing his own shadow. Though the book may have had a sudden birth, its gestation period in Jung's unconscious was long; the subject of God, what Jung saw as the dark side of God, was a lifelong preoccupation. An emotional and theoretical struggle with the core nature of deity is evident in Jung's earliest fantasies and dreams, as well as in his complex relationships with his father, his mother, the Christian church itself. Jung's account of his childhood in his quasi-autobiography, Dreams, provides deep, personal background about his early religious roots and conflicts. In 2007, Philip Zimbardo suggested that people may act in evil ways as a result of a collective identity; this hypothesis, based on his previous experience from the Stanford prison experiment, was published in the book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.
Most monotheistic religions posit that the singular God is all-powerful, all-knowing, good. The problem of ev
Justice, in its broadest context, includes both the attainment of that, just and the philosophical discussion of that, just. The concept of justice is based on numerous fields, many differing viewpoints and perspectives including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, law, religion and fairness; the general discussion of justice is divided into the realm of social justice as found in philosophy and religion, procedural justice as found in the study and application of the law. The concept of justice differs in every culture. Early theories of justice were set out by the Ancient Greek philosophers Plato in his work The Republic, Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics. Throughout history various theories have been established. Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice issues from God. In the 1600s, theorists like John Locke argued for the theory of natural law. Thinkers in the social contract tradition argued that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned.
In the 1800s, utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill argued that justice is what has the best consequences. Theories of distributive justice concern what is distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians argued. John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, distributive justice, is a form of fairness. Property rights theorists take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights-based justice maximizes the overall wealth of an economic system. Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing. Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of offenders. In his dialogue Republic, Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice that covers both the just person and the just City State. Justice is a harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence, Plato's definition of justice is. 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 universal level. A person's soul has three parts – reason and desire. A city has three parts – 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. Lovers of wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a medic rather than a farmer, because the medic is expert in the subject of health. One should trust one's city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what's good for them. Socrates uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain, a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course, a navigator, the only one who knows how to get the ship to port.
For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator takes charge. Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice, indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command of God. Murder 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, thus doing what he says would be best for everyone. A meditation on the Divine command theory by Plato can be found in Euthyphro. Called the Euthyphro dilemma, it goes as follows: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" The implication is that if the latter is true justice is arbitrary. A response, popularized in two contexts by Immanuel Kant and C. S. Lewis, is that it is deductively valid to argue that the existence of an objective morality implies the existence of God and vice versa.
For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law, it involves the system of consequences that derives from any action or choice. 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 deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, religions, etc. are attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that contradict the true nature of justice. In Republic by Plato, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong – a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people. Advocates of the social contract agree that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; this account is considered further below, under'Justice as fairness'. The absence of bias refers to an equal ground for all people