Category: Justice

In 1692 religion was the center of most people’s lives in Salem, Massachusetts. When the idea that the devil could give other humans the power to harm others is when the turmoil began. Those who were given these ‘powers’ were coined with the name of witches. The Witchcraft Act of 1542 passed by Parliament, defined witchcraft as a ‘crime punishable by death’. The long-held perception of witches brings visions of conical hats, black cats and bubbling cauldrons. Witchcraft emerged in Europe as early as the 14th century and eventually found its way to the new world. Joseph Glanvill, a 17th-century academician and naturalist, defined a witch as ‘one who can do or seems to do strange things, beyond the known power of art and ordinary nature, by virtue of a confederacy with evil spirits”. There was, of course, an attempt to explain away the bewitchment. In 1976, a study published in Science magazine blamed the fungus ergot (found in rye, wheat, and other cereals), which can cause symptoms such as delusions and muscle spasms.

To understand the outcome, we first must understand how things started. At the end of the day, the witch trials were more about Christianity than about witchcraft. In the simplest of terms, Salem declared its martial law to deal with the heresy. This came into play early for one Salem Village family. Samual Parris, the local minister, gets a first-hand look when his 9-year-old daughter Elizabeth and his 11-year-old niece Abigail Williams began acting differently not just from themselves but beyond what a nine and eleven year old should act like. These were violent contortions and uncontrollable outbursts of screaming. Local doctor, William Griggs offered a diagnosis of bewitchment. Other young girls in the community began showing the same type of symptoms and in February 1692, arrest warrants were issued for Tituba, the Parris’ family Caribbean slave and two other women accused by the girls of bewitchment, Sally Good, a harmless beggar and Sarah Osborn, whose only crime at the time was being elderly.

Tituba’s origin is vague at best. I found sources that claim her birthplace was Africa, others claiming she was born in South America and sold into slavery in Barbados and even another calling her an American Indian slave. The exotic nature of her adds to the mystery. It is alleged that she told the young girls in the Parris household, and their friends, stories of witchcraft and performed magical rituals. Tituba was an unwitting participant accused of performing acts of ‘voodoo’ and fortune-telling. Despite this accusation, these charges were never substantiated.

Moving on to the trials themselves, Salem’s first convicted witch, Bridget Bishop, was hanged in June of 1692. There would be 18 others soon after sent to their deaths on the now infamous Gallows Hill. Over the next several months, 150 other men, women and children were accused. Enthusiasm started to wane in September of 1692, hysteria finally abating. It is important to understand that there were no burnings at the stake in the New World. These were confined to Europe. The methods of punishment preferred here were hangings, dunking’s, and pressings. Oddly enough, if you survived any of these punishments, you were a witch and if you died you were innocent.

Tituba was beaten into coercion by Reverend Parris and rehearsed on what to say. She was pressed into saying the Devil had spoken directly to her and through her. Tituba was interrogated at least five times, more than any other defendant, for great lengths of time. She at one point admitted to flying on a pole between houses and attacking sleeping children. Her confession, coerced or otherwise, set the stage for upcoming questioning and punishment. Tituba, in exchange for naming names and her confession to witchcraft, would be spared a severe punishment like hanging. Tituba’s confession gave validation to the initial witchcraft charges. Other accused followed the precedent set by Tituba and confessed hoping to see their trials postponed as well.

Interrogations were preformed where the accusers and accused were not only together in a room but questioned at the same time. This allowed for intimidation of both accused and accuser to take place in the open, and blatantly. This tactic served to elicit more accusations toward people who were only present to witness the proceedings. One of the notables in this situation was Martha Corey. She had heard rumors of her indictment of witchcraft. Martha confronted her accusers head-on. When they came to her home to bring the accusation(s) she merely said, “I cannot help people talking of me”. Her primary accuser had been a twelve-year-old girl who claimed Martha Corey had “blinded her and told her that she should see you no before it was night, that she might not tell us what clothes you had on”.

Martha professed her innocence by assuring her callers that she was a ‘woman of God’. She was reminded at the time by her deacon that a profession of faith was not a verdict of innocent. The warrant for Martha’s arrest went out the following day, Saturday, but would not be executed till after the Sabbath. This allowed Martha to attend meeting and stand alongside of her accusers.

There are many hypotheses still being formulated about what truly happened during the Salem Witch Trials. Numerous innocent lives were taken in this hunt for evil witches. The strange chain of events leaves many mysteries and unanswered questions behind for researchers today.

Is Torture Justified when used for national security and the society’s perspective on that matter?

Statement of the Problem

The thesis question is if torture is justified when used for national security and the views of society on if it is necessary. The problem of this topic stems from those who do know that if there is torture going through our government and those who are not aware of it. Currently, the ones who do know about it are those who experienced it and tried to voice their opinions and that is the problem. The problem of torture is questioned if people deserve it in the first place and in many scenarios it is based on prejudices. The article “We all need safety from violence and terrorism, but no government should sacrifice people’s human rights in the name of national security” which is about National Security and Human Rights states a case study about Shaker Aamer “who at the time of 2002 a U.K resident was sent to a U.S facility in Guantanamo Bay after the attack on September 11, 2001, and during that time he maintained his innocence and was subjected to torture for many years until October 2015 while stating that the authorities had no plans to charge or release him”(n.d). The problem of people lacking awareness of our government torturing people which does violate our human rights is that in some cases it is not justified in that scenario. The issue with this topic however is that people do not know of tortured events that have happened and are they justified for their reasons.

Background and Purpose

Is torture justified when protecting our national security? Throughout the history of our country, there have been many attacks that have threatened the safety of the citizens. That pushes the United States to take preemptive measures to make sure situations like that do not happen. However, the measures taken seem drastic for those who may not be involved or are involved because of racial stereotypes. In the article “National Security and human rights” After the attack on September 11th, 2001 many people were sent to a makeshift prison in Guantanamo Bay because it was believed to be a relation to the attack and the people there”. A U.K resident Shaker Aamer was a victim in that situation because he was held in prison and tortured for no reason. In this situation, the use of torture was unjust because Shakir had nothing to do with it because he was just a translator for the United States army for the Gulf war and then he was swept into prison in Cuba for thirteen years.

When situations like this occur normally people would know about it or it would be publicized, however, it is never repeated to make the change as well as forgotten as time moves on. “When one gets mad one should count to ten” in which was said by David Crane who was a former senior legal advisor for the special operations forces in the United States. David Crane was covered in an article called “Why torture is never justified: World-renowned torture experts speak out against the practice” and he states that “when the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, we pushed our Constitution away, and it did not work which lead the U.S down to use torture techniques in Guantanamo and other sites around the world”.(Crane 2016). David and some of the other experts believe that torture techniques are never supposed to be used for any situation. Other experts have stated that torture breeds more hatred and can cause more harm than good like creating extremist groups that want to further harm the states than was intended to do.

While true there are many problems to torture there are those who support its use of them. To many tortures is the simplest way to get answers to questions people desperately need to keep others safe. Nicole J Stanford who did a thesis paper called “Torture: A feasible Means For National Security Strategy” she states “While there are some cases of successful interrogational torture like the case of Khalid Sheikh where the use of torture has given the U.S information to find him, the overall results of the use of torture are harmful to its victims as well as social”(1995 Standford). The United States which is a strong proponent for humanitarian law was soon found itself criticized for its treatment of detainees and it is for that reason that after certain attacks or methods to prevent them that commentators and politicians have had endless debates about interrogation techniques of international law and treaties to the enemy.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to explore the reasons why torture techniques were used and are it justified to protect our national security. Another reason is to see what the majority of society thinks about the techniques being used on people who may or may not deserve it. Many results have shown that torture is wrong for many humanitarian reasons, but for national safety for the United States citizens is it worth doing?

Operational Definitions

• Torture: Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.
• International Humanitarian Law/Law of War/Law of Armed Conflict: The rules which, in times of armed conflict seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, and to restrict the methods and means of warfare employed.
• Human Rights Law: Rules and treaties that protect individuals at all times. The primary goals of these laws are to protect citizens from their own government.
• Convention Against Torture (CAT): The CAT is a treaty that bans torture under all circumstances including external threats, states of emergency or orders from a superior officer or authority.
• International Humanitarian Law/Law of War/Law of Armed Conflict: The rules which, in times of armed conflict seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, and to restrict the methods and means of warfare employed.

Literature Review

“Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them… Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence quoted” by Barack Obama. Torture is any act of severe pain and suffering on another to obtain information. If there was an immediate threat to the safety of a nation does the public know if the government is using torture techniques to find information to stop it? Is torture justified for the protection of one’s nation even if it is has beneficial results? The human rights act of 1998 allows people to defend their rights and to treat everyone equally and fairly and article three of the human rights act states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman acts”. The human rights act is very important because it protects the freedom everyone is given and to be treated equally and fairly like everyone else, however many people do not know that in some countries acts of torture still happen in the name of national security.

History of Torture in the United States

In the article, Torture in the United States(2019), it has focused on the events where torture was used throughout history, and in 2006 President Bush did state that the united states do not torture and use those acts in the future, however, three years earlier in March 2003 the bush administration had secretly tortured Khalid Mohammed at least 183 times during that single month(Tom Head 2019). Based on the history of this man who is claimed to be the head architect of 9/11, is it justified that he was tortured? Different types of people who may deserve it and many who do not deserve torture, but if it was for safety then is it justified?

During the time of President Bill Clinton, he had authorized a transfer of noncitizen prisoners to Egypt for interrogation and during that time statements that torture has been used by the intelligence agencies. A clash of regulations happened as human rights activists have argued that the point of rendition, however by doing so the U.S intelligence agencies are not breaking the U.S. anti-torture laws at that point(Tom Head 2019). Throughout the rest of the article there are different torture events that has happened and the media does not cover it. Most media outlets decided not to cover the information and some just can not because the government is trying to keep it secret. Even right now some inmates or citizens are being tortured and not everybody knows and their opinions on the matter are not being heard.

Ethical Factors

To discuss the uses of torture that is happening one must go through the ethical arguments for both the pros and cons on the use of torture. Henry Shue, an American philosopher who worked at the intersections of philosophy, human rights, and international relations was also one of the biggest people who argued against the use of torture. Shue disapproves of torture by disagreeing with the reasoning if killing is worse than torture, then some torture should be allowed. One of the statements Henry has stated is that the only reason torture can happen is after the victim has yielded and torture is not similar to war and it is worse than killing because it is an assault on the defenseless.(Shue 2004).

The defenseless can be referred to as the people who unintentionally got involved in situations that involved torture. Those who have been singled out because of the way they look which is some degree of prejudice are the ones that shouldn’t be subjected to torture. An argument that is normally used when discussing the use of torture is normally called the ticking-time-detonation scenario. Often being silenced because of how unrealistic that situation is because there are lots of variables that affect that situation. For starters, the assailant may not be talking even going through the torture and there is no confirmation that the suspect knows about the plan or is even telling the correct information before the attack happens. This type of torture also has negative consequences in the long run because if torture is allowed then it will fall down a slippery slope routine where it will be common and be used for non-emergency situations. In regards to the negatives against the use of torture those who state the pros for the use of torture in that situation that the person in charge must make the decision to avoid the worst-case scenario even if it means they go against their morals. In some arguments about the uses of torture that in most situations it is a case of the rights of the victims vs the rights of the suspect

References

1. We all need safety from violence and terrorism, but no government should sacrifice people’s human rights in the name of national security. National Security and Human Rights, Retrieved 09/12/19 from https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/national-security/.
2. We all need safety from violence and terrorism, but no government should sacrifice people’s human rights in the name of national security. National Security and Human Rights, Retrieved 09/12/19 from https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/national-security/.
3. Nicole J. Stanford. (1995). Torture: A Feasible Means For National Security Strategy.Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
4. Why torture is never justified. (2018, March 9). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/why-torture-is-never-justified

Taking a stand in life means developing the backbone to stand for what one believes is important. It is right to take a stand when freedom is being deprived and for independence.

Viktor E. Frank once said, “It is not freedom from conditions, but it is the freedom to take a stand toward the conditions.” For instance, Nelson Mandela, who was the first black President of South Africa, demonstrated taking a stand for freedom by staying in jail. Mandela was born on July 28, 1918, in a small village, Mvezu, in the Eastern Cape. Growing up he learned of the unfair discrimination faced by non-whites living in South Africa and wanted to help end this discrimination. Mandela later went to study law at the University of the Witwatersrand. Apartheid was introduced in 1948 by the National Park which was a harsh system that gave few opportunities to non-white people and took away their basic human rights such as education. Mandela was elected President of the African National Congress Youth League in 1951. He first encouraged nonviolent protests as he wanted to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s example but as this did not work, they later on used more violent tactics. The apartheid government then labeled Mandela and the other civil rights activists as terrorists. Soon he was arrested by the government and sentenced to jail. He spent 27 years in jail and during that time became a significant symbol to the people of South Africa and gained international support as there were worldwide protests against the apartheid government. The fight against the apartheid government was a success due to local and international pressure and on February 11, 1990, F.W. de Klerk, who was South Africa’s president at that time, released Nelson Mandela from jail. Together they worked to end apartheid by abolishing apartheid laws, freeing civil rights protestors, and unbanning political parties. Freedom is a need that humans can not abstain from and without Nelson Mandela’s fight for freedom, many could not live freely and equally right now.

Injustice will never change if we keep it hidden, but only when we bring it into the light to see it. For example, Bryan Stevenson, the director of the Equal Justice Initiative, showed standing up for injustice, by acknowledging slavery. Born in 1959, Stevenson grew up in Milton, Delaware Stevenson’s family attended the Prospect African Methodist Episcopal Church. When he grew up, he founded the Equal Justice Initiative and became very popular. The Equal Justice Initiative offices are near the landing at the Alabama River where slaves were unloaded in the domestic slave trade which was one of the largest slave-auction sites in the country. In downtown Montgomery, there were dozens of historic markers and numerous monuments related to Confederate history, but nothing acknowledging the history of slavery, on which the wealth of the South was based on. He proposed to the state and gave documentation to recognize three slavery sites with historic markers, but was denied because it was controversial. Stevenson decided to work with an African-American history group to gain sponsorship for this project and they gained state approval for the three markers in 2013, and these have been installed in Montgomery. By taking a stand for injustice against and the historic importance of slavery in Montgomery, people will now be able to learn of the past.

When it’s right, taking a stand for injustice and freedom is the right thing to do. Without taking a stand for these things, life would be meaningless and empty. One must always stand up for what is right, even if they have to do it alone.

Plato’s ‘Nature of Justice: A Critical Analysis

This essay is a culmination of personal opinions along with reference to several other works on a similar topic all of which have been cited duly.

Abstract

There are several takes on the nature and theories of justice. However, Plato in his Republic provides some very famous arguments for what justice means and what it is to be a just individual living in a just state. He has criticized the already existing theories on justice and propounded one of his own. He was extremely disappointed with the political situation in Athens and this is what motivated him to go forward and propose a theory of his own. The following essay explains the ‘Nature of justice’ as put forth by Plato and what it is to be a ‘Just Individual’ and a ‘Just State’. In this essay, I have critically analyzed the theory and concluded whether it is fit for application in the real world or not.

Plato’s Theory of Justice: Background

Before getting into the analysis of Plato’s theory of justice it is very important to understand the theories and propositions that existed before it. Cephalus pointed out that justice is nothing but the right conduct. It is concerned with paying off one’s debt. Similarly, Polemarchus also points out justice to be an act of doing good to friends but bad to one’s enemies. Socrates criticized Polemarchus on the grounds that, “what if a friend only portrays to be one?” Moreover, is it just to harm anyone? Be they friends or enemies? Then, he questioned Cephalus on the point that is justice only being truthful and paying off debt. Moreover, there are so many cases when it is extremely harmful to be truthful. Thus, he is not convinced by either of the definition of justice. Then after these two philosophers, there is a conversation between Socrates and Thrasymachus in ‘The Republic. According to Thrasymachus, justice is a scenario wherein the strong make rules and the weak adhere to them. To this Socrates counters by saying what if the ruler who is supposed to make laws is unaware of the interest of the weaker sections of the society? Will it still be just? The final argument before Plato’s theory of justice is the one put forth by brothers, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. They say that individuals that are just are not so because they believe in it but because they are scared of punishment and thus do justice out of mere necessity. In situations like this, they suggest injustice is better. (Bhandari, Plato’s Concept Of Justice: An Analysis)

Plato was very dissatisfied with the conditions of Athens and believed that this degenerating condition was what led to the demise of Socrates. He believed that the democracy in Athens was in ruins. He was very critical of the theories that had been provided by Cephalus(giving what is owed), Polemarchus(good to friends and bad to enemies), Thrasymachus(only for the ruler), and Glaucon(social contract between two people of equal power). (Bhandari, Plato’s Concept Of Justice: An Analysis)

As a result of his dissatisfaction, Plato started to find a loophole in the existing democratic system in Athens. He then concluded that the problem would be solved with the emergence of an effective justice system. He believed that the system would work only if there was harmony and the feeling of goodness among human beings. Plato imagined a state where the citizens will keep aside their irrational desires and selfishness and be just. Thus, Plato concluded that justice was the only cure for the evils that had been existing in society and propagated the idea of a ‘Just State’ and ‘Just person’ that describes the idea of the ‘Nature of Justice’ put forth by Plato.

Plato’s Nature of Justice1

Plato in ‘The Republic’ gives a very important position to the idea of justice. According to him, the ‘nature-ordained’ duty is justice. Socrates says that in order to understand the meaning of justice one must first see its application at the level of the state and the level of an individual. He writes, “To do one’s own business and not to be a busybody is justice” (Republic 433b). His concept of justice has a ‘just state’ where reside ‘just individuals’. The concept of justice according to Plato is indulging in what is best suited and what the individual is specialized in. however, excess and deficiency of any kind will be regarded as an injustice. He believes that the failure to ensure a just society would lead to the disintegration of the entire state. (Wright, 2012)

The city and soul analogy is proposed by Socrates in the book to enable the readers to understand the concept of justice for an individual soul and this analogy is to show the interrelation between individuals and the state. To elaborate on his theory of justice there is an attempt to understand how society shapes an individual and how individuals shape society. To simplify this further Plato puts out two important features of justice

The first is the concept of a just individual wherein every individual is viewed as a functional unit that has been allotted a particular task and is obligated to limit himself to performing that task alone.

The second is the concept of a just society where there is a sense of harmony in the system of assigning distinctive roles to each representing an important function of the society.

Thus, a Platonic idea of justice is ‘harmony in the city’ and ‘harmony in the soul’. It is the creation of an environment where every individual in the state is performing what that individual is naturally suited for. Justice for Plato meant, “one class, one duty; one man, one work”

Just individual.

Plato believes that just individuals result in a just state and individuals are not disconnected from the state. He says that every soul has three elements; ‘reason’, ‘spirit’, and ‘appetite’. Socrates says that each individual will be just only if each and every part of the individual is performing its proper function. (tanwar, Plato’s Theories: Theory of Justice, Education, and Communism)

In Plato’s analogy, the part of the soul that is the reason part, that is rational must rule. It must have the wisdom to act for the whole. On the other hand, the spirit part of the soul is deemed to obey. This part will agree to and support whatever it is that the rational part of the soul puts forth. Lastly, the appetite part of the soul has a role other than simply following. Thus, one can conclude that in a just individual the goal of the soul is to fulfill the desires and the orders of the rational part. This can be compared to a just society wherein the motive of the entire society is to fulfill the goals and the aims of the guardian philosopher. Therefore, justice deals with the inner self of a man and not with external actions. A just individual will ensure that the three features of the soul do not interfere with each other (similar to a just society where the three strata do not interfere.). The trespassing of one function over the other will lead to chaos in the mind and create injustice. According to Plato, in a situation where one element rebels against the others when it is only supposed to behave as a slave in its natural role then a situation of injustice arises.

Just State.

Plato considers the theory of the ideal state as ‘individual writ large. Plato believes that every individual in a state has a specific role in it and they are best suited to adhering to their roles and not interfering with the jobs of others. According to him each individual in a state should be put to use in the particular field that nature intended him, where he has a specialization. Everyone must focus on only their specific intended business and not indulge in several businesses. (tanwar, Plato’s Theories: Theory of Justice, Education, and Communism).

Like Plato’s ‘just individual’s soul is divided into three parts(reason, spirit, and appetite), a just society is also divided. Plato’s ‘just state’ is divided into three main classes namely the ‘guardians’, those who govern the state, and philosophers. Second, are the ‘auxiliaries’, they are the soldiers that defend the state and the final class is that of the ‘producers.’ (Wright, 2012). The philosophers are the ones that have attained great knowledge and are enlightened. However, they are not motivated by a palatial lifestyle and live deprived of their private family and live with members of the auxiliaries. Thus, a platonic state of justice does not talk about equality, in fact, it is quite opposite to that and establishes an orderly hierarchy within the state. It aims at creating and propagating the concept of the class hierarchy. He believes in the concept of ‘Philosopher kings’ who would rule the people of a particular state and these individuals do not have the freedom to be flexible with their work opportunities. The state is very rigid with respect to what each individual in the state must do. (Mishra, 2018) This way according to Plato, the entire state would be one and not be divided into too many. Plato proposes that a state is said to be completely just when all the three classes of the state are meticulously involved in their own business and such a state possesses four major virtues; ‘wisdom, courage, discipline, and justice. (tanwar, Plato’s Theories: Theory of Justice, Education, and Communism)

Critical Analysis of Plato’s theory of justice:

Plato’s theory of justice as put forth in ‘The Republic’ may sound very well organized where every individual in the state has a role to fulfill and there is coordination. However, upon critically analyzing the nature of justice put forth by Plato one cannot ignore the several loopholes and setbacks in the theory that prove that the nature of justice propounded by Plato is wrong in the practical sense:

Plato in his idea of a ‘just state’ mentions how a state would do justice if and only if every individual is doing things that they are best suited for. Here, he introduces the concept of ‘specialization’. Plato assumes that everyone is working in harmony in what they are specialized in and writes nothing about what the state will do if a conflict arises. He has turned a blind eye to the chances of disagreements between the various individuals of either the same class or of different classes. Thus, his concept of a just state is very ‘superficial’ and does not dig in enough to realize that conflict is inevitable.

Plato describes justice as a ‘human virtue’, something that is concerned with the soul of an individual. He proposes and elaborates on ‘morality’. However, legal provisions are very important. Morality is one thing but legality is another. Plato has no clear distinction between the two. Thus, in a state that follows the nature of justice proposed by Plato, upon any conflict or disagreement, moral duty may not bear any benefits and legal actions will be required. A set of external rules is very important for the functioning of the state which is missing in the theory of justice proposed by Plato as it only sheds light on internal ideals and values. The concept of morality may a) be subjective and b) not be enough to sort out any form of conflict that arises.

Thus, along with pointing out the lack of a proper legal system, it is essential to note that the system of justice under Plato has no structural document written or unwritten that must be adhered to. No sense of rights and wrongs is laid in the sense of a written constitution that can be referred to when the time arises. This however is not surprising at all because Plato assumes that everyone is living in harmony and there exists no conflict so there is no need for a written document that people must adhere to.

Plato gives no freedom of choice to the individuals of a state. They are meant to do only what they are assumed to be best at. If a person wants to indulge in some other job it is considered to be an interference and unjust. This is very impractical in a real scenario where every individual not only does what they think they are good at but also has many other factors associated with their jobs. These may be the pay, the convenience, the quality of life, etc. Based on these factors a person decides their job in reality. It is also very common to see people shuffling between jobs for extra pay. This is unacceptable in Plato’s just society and thus very impractical.

In Plato’s society, there is a concept of the guardian class that is supposed to guide the other individuals. They rule the state and are called ‘philosopher kings’ Even though Plato explains that these philosopher kings are driven by knowledge and not by power it is very impractical to assume that in a real-life political scenario the ruler will not be tempted by power. This idea is fit for a Utopian structure but in practical execution, there are high chances that this class may want to establish hegemony over the state. Since there is no legal structure the powers of the philosopher kings cannot be kept in check which can be very dangerous.

Another major drawback that can be seen in Plato’s idea of philosopher kings is that philosophers, even though might be extremely intellectual and knowledgeable may not be best suited for politics and ruling. They may not be able to deal with situations of crisis and pressure as well as someone who has interest and proficiency in the political arena can. A philosopher can be given the role of a guide to the ruler, the one that gives advice and information but does not take decisions as that requires political knowledge and not the knowledge of philosophy.

Plato views individuals as part of the state and not as their own selves that possess different characteristics. Every human is bound to have emotions of jealousy, selfishness, and betrayal. These features may make an individual unreasonable and make them want to destroy the work of other individuals. But Plato completely overlooks this and does not view individuals with human attributes.

Conclusion

Thus, after clearly explaining the nature of justice proposed by Plato and the concept of a ‘just state’ and a ‘just individual’ and performing a critical evaluation of the same I conclude that the concept of justice proposed by Plato is suitable for a utopian society where no one indulges in conflicts and disagreements and all the individuals are specialized in one thing or the other. They are all driven by their morality and need no law to guide them. This view of justice as a human virtue cannot be applied in real-world scenarios because every individual is guided by several human emotions of jealousy, power hunger, betrayal, etc. These characteristics will lead to instability in Plato’s ideal state.

References

1. Bhandari, D. (n.d.). Plato’s Concept Of Justice: An Analysis.
2. Bhandari, D. (n.d.). Plato’s Concept Of Justice: An Analysis. Paideia.
3. Mishra, I. N. (2018, august 25). Plato’s Theory of Justice. Countercurrents.
4. tanwar, s. (n.d.). Plato’s Theories: Theory of Justice, Education, and Communism.
5. tanwar, s. (n.d.). Plato’s Theories: Theory of Justice, Education, and Communism. political science.
6. Wright, C. C. (2012). Plato’s Just State. © Philosophy Now 2020.

In my opinion, justice is an act of giving freedom to an individual through the means of proper rules and regulations and promoting equality. It aims to provide equal rights, opportunities, and facilities to an individual and society in a fair way. However, according to Merriam 2018, “justice means securing and protecting of rights of all in a fair way. It stands for harmony among all the people, orderly living, and securing of rights of all in a just and fair way. Justice is giving what everyone deserves but I think it is unfair in some workplaces. For example, during a job interview, some of the interviewers do injustices by looking at the background and relationships for the job, on the other hand, poor people are left without a job. In order to stop such cruel things there should be justice among the individual to protect the rights of the individual and to provide equal opportunities and facilities in a fair way. Therefore, this paper emphasizes my opinion on justice and how justices can give freedom to an individual.

In my life whatever I do I will follow the concept of justice which is on the ethics and law where people can behave in a way that is fair, equal, and balanced for every individual to stand out on their own and give freedom. However in the work of political philosopher that is John Rawls, in his book “A Theory of Justice”, the author addresses the problem of distributive justice which concerns the socially just allocation of goods and in social psychology, it is defined as perceived fairness of how reward and cost are shared by group members (Rawls, 2005). Similarly to that in my school days, we use to have group works where we need to work ourselves as an individual to fetch good marks, so for that, I use to work harder as compared to my group members and I use to work more hours but receive the same marks in the group so I feel that distributive justice has not occurred. In the theory of justice, there are two principles of justice that are the first principle: 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. And the second principle: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. As my main idea on justice is concerned with giving individuals their own freedom and giving them an opportunity to stand on their own feet so the first principle also aims at the distribution of rights and liberties to vote and run their offices, freedom to speech, and assembly, freedom of personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest (Maiese, 2016).

In my life, I always wanted to be someone who wants to give justice not always in a big way but even in small ways where people will get their own freedom. Gautama Buddha has stated that justice with good law will lead to peace and order but if the laws are evil then it can lead to revolution and disobedience in the state (Bhandari, n.d.). Without justice, society will find it very hard to survive so it is very important to learn about the injustice practice around us that can be in class or outside class too. In our country, many criminals and poor people fall into rich people where there comes a situation where they could not stand for their own rights which leads to corruption. Moreover, Bhutan is ranked 29th as the corrupt country out of 109 countries which show there is less justice in our country. Looking at this present scenario I always try to understand more and think of how can I overcome those rising issues and how can I curve down corruption. So, in the future, wherever I work I will always think of working without a corrupted mind and I won’t let other people corrupt too. Though it will be not easy for many people to understand justice and corruption I will always try my best to have justice not only in my life but also in others’ life. It is because it will have a great impact on everyone’s life.

Corruption should be banned permanently from our country because corruption has many negative impacts which can even result in the fall of a nation. Thus, to prevent such falls many different agencies are established to stop corruption and to give justice to the corrupted officials in the country and world. Every individual deserves justice, so to give justice to the people many agencies were established such as in Bhutan civil servants are selected through RCSE merit-based system. Increasing salary and pays, reduces the rate of corruption since high pay and wages can meet the needs and wants of the people and people will not have any intentions to do corrupt activities. Singapore has successfully been able to reduce its corruption rate by increasing salaries and Singapore is the only Asian country that is in the ‘top ten least corrupt countries according to Transparency international’s index (voskanyan and Armenia, 2000). Rules and regulations should not be lenient but firm and decisive so that people would be discouraged to commit corruption. ACC (Anti-Corruption Commission) has been established to reduce the corruption rate and to look after the balance in the country. RAA (Royal Audit Authority) has also been established to look after the country’s audit and budget allocations and Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and anti-corruption are established for the international level and are located in every country.

In conclusion, justice is not always about solving the problems between two or more parties but justice is defined as the reordering of social life in such a way that the material and moral benefit of the people are not cornered by the tiny privileged class, but accrue to the masses to ensures the uplift of lower weak and underprivileged sections (Gauba, 2017). I think, if there is no strong justice enforcer in society, there will be lots of problems. Moreover, after studying justice I got to know that distributive justice is important to an individual to get their freedom because it determines the level of hard work with the level of payment. So, I will always follow the principles of justice in order to give other people the to stand on their own feet and freedom by limiting the causes of corruption.

References

1. Gauba, O. P. (2017). An Introduction to political theory. In Sahibabad. A.S Offset Press.
2. Mac, M. (2016). Principle of Justice and Fairness. Retrieved from https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/principle_of_justice
3. Merriam, C. E. (2018). Speech on Justice: Meaning and type of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/speech/speech-on-justice-meaning-and-types-of-justiy/40361
4. Rawls, J. (2005). Political Liberalism. New York:NY: Columbia University Press.

Injustice faced by people around the world has always driven my desire to try and help others in both my immediate vicinity and on a broader scale. For example, the three hundred days without charge that Jagtar Singh Johal faced when he was abducted by the Indian authorities in 2017 on fabricated accusations moved me deeply as a travesty of justice. Despite a thousand-page charge sheet filed no conviction has yet been given. Societal perceptions of right or wrong are derived from the law, and from this, the foundation of a society’s basic principles of equality, liberty, and justice are formed. It is when injustice and oppression result from a deviation from these principles that I feel impelled to fight against the misuse of the law. It has been this impulse that has led me to apply to study for a Law degree that will allow me to realize my aspiration of becoming a lawyer for disadvantaged people within society.

My present A-Level studies have driven my ambitions toward the legal arena. For example, studying A-Level History has allowed me to get an insight into how the law can affect people in various ways. For example, the Jim Crow laws in 1877 deprived basic Article 14 Human Rights for African Americans and discriminated between the two races. This emphasized the importance of law for the progression of communities and allowed me to develop my analytical and critical thinking skills. Economics allowed me to see the importance of law in influencing the growth of the economy and markets, as a bad law can reduce investment in the country. Whereas Business has enabled me to understand the impact of legislation on Business, thus these subjects have enabled me to develop skills like problem-solving and logical reasoning.

Taking an extra A – Level in Panjabi, in my own time, has helped me understand vital cultural differences between communities and has also allowed me to see the law from different perspectives, as one piece of law can have varying impacts on different communities. For example, the draft of a new offensive weapon bill stated possession of swords would be illegal. This, therefore, meant law-abiding Sikhs who keep religious swords for ceremonial purposes would be prosecuted. I have had an interest in law and In Year 12 I was fortunate enough to attend a Law masterclass on crime and punishment. We were given the task to use logical reasoning with the conjunction of the law to find a suitable sentence for an offender. Consequently, this deepened my understanding of the law and encouraged me to further enhance my experience with the legal system. Therefore, I visited Birmingham Crown Court this year where I witnessed some criminal cases. I witnessed a manslaughter case where the defendant was accused of accidentally pushing his mother down the stairs, thus killing her. Moreover, in court, I learned about the importance of defense statements in a case, as I saw, in this case, the lack of this statement on the offender’s side could lead to a weaker position. As the prosecutor can ask for a statutory warning from the court to be given at the pre-trial hearing. Thus, this enabled me to have a greater understanding of the profession and how the Legal system operates. I have a variety of extracurricular interests.

My involvement with the debating club has helped greatly in the development of my argumentative skills, my ability to use cogent and persuasive rhetoric, and my ability to scrutinize other people’s sides of a debate. Through constructively debating topics, such as The British Empire and Brexit, I have come to understand a range of different perspectives on topical and historical issues I believe I have the tenacity and determination to successfully undertake a law degree. Your institution would equip me with vital skills (such as evaluative and oral communication) and the ability to use these in both an academic and professional context, which would, in turn, aid me to counteract oppression and injustice at every level in society.

The concept of poverty, capability deprivation, and social exclusion have been widely used but on problematical perception. The capability approach reflects different ways in which humans’ lives become blighted, which in turn gives a framework into which poverty can be analyzed. Various authors in books and journals have come forward to explain poverty as a capability deprivation with some supporting documented literature while others reject it. Notably, all authors aim at explaining measures society needs to undertake in the fight against poverty. Typically, a framework involved in poverty analysis can seek to reflect on how culture can be changed and how economic shock can be reduced. This paper entails a discussion on how capability theory is an essential measure to fight poverty than a focus on raising the income of the poor based on the arguments presented from three articles written by Sen Amartya, Nussbaum Martha, and Katherine Boo.

Usually, sex, a person’s location, social class and role, age, and epidemiology atmosphere directly affect self-capability and income, and humans have no control over them (Sen 1). Society coexistence involves meeting the specific needs of the old and those of the very young. Gender and social class play an important role when a person has maternity, insecurity, or family obligations in which all costs must be met. Location involves the proneness to aspects such as flooding, or drought, uncertainty, and violence in the cities. When we take a close examination of communities based on their age, gender, location, and so on, the variations of parameters become particularly important. Building the capability of a group ensures that even when the breadwinner becomes incapacitated, the family will have the privilege to use sources and skills gathered within the community.

Income tends to be limited in covering all basic need and hence call for diversification. According to the Amartya Sen, when a person becomes ill, disabled, or grows old, the ability to earn an income typically goes down. Also, it becomes harder for such people to convert income into capability since there needs even more money for prosthesis, assistance, and treatment (Sen 1). Empowering people through salary increases means that real poverty will never be kicked out in a generation. In the end, more poverty will be intense than what appears in the income phase. Ideally, these facts act as an open eye to the government and concerned groups that the elderly need to be assisted in converting income to capabilities. Even though they are on a low income, the little earned can be invested to create a plus source of income, which otherwise helps suppress the primary income.

Sen continues to indicate that income distribution in a family is a considerable challenge (Sen 2). This is especially when family income is misused for the benefit of a few and the disadvantage of others. Families that practice favor to the boy child when allocating resources might cause capacity deprivation a form of reduced ability or suffer from capability disorders in the girl child. This issue is common in families in Asia and North Africa and is believed to be caused by sex biases. The girl child’s degree of capability deprivation can be checked with increased cases of morbidity, undernourishment, mortality, and neglect of the medical provision, among others. For a family to diversify its income and avoid challenges in income distribution, capacity building is essential. Poverty cuts across all genders, and once a specific gender is favored in resource allocation, both end up suffering when poverty strikes.

The capabilities approach acts as a powerful tool to craft accounts for social justice (Nussbaum 8). The idea behind the capabilities approach entails a space that can be used for comparison of inequalities and insufficient. Usually, it’s essential for those in the political class to get the vision of social justice and which has the requisite information about the capability of a society. Even though politicians always doctor this information, the reality on the ground can help understand areas of the community that needs improvement, especially on women’s empowerment. Also, men in society need to recognize that women have a role to play in the fight against poverty and that they have the capacity. According to Martha Nussbaum, women are making proposals in public portfolios demanding respect for their human dignity. When society accepts that gender justice, which correlates to the connection of both sexes, has a role to play in the fight against poverty reduction, the whole world will accept that capability building is the way to fighting poverty and community empowerment.

Deprivation on income has a direct negative effect on the capability approach of a person. A person earning relatively high as per the international standard salary scale in a rich country is considered inferior and capability deprived (Sen 2). In this case, such a person can’t be classified as being financially stable even after earning a high salary. Abundant countries’ commodities and services are relatively high in price and usually cause income deprivation on employees even if there make much more compared to other countries. Income deprivation, in this case, means money is instantly spent after being received from the employer, which gives no room for investment and capacity building. In this case, more income becomes a must for a person to buy enough items and commodities to fit in the same social class. Adam Smith, in his journal The Wealth of Nations of 1776, indicates that poverty and wealth are socially determined. Rich countries offer tremendous opportunities for capability approach building, and hence people working in such places need to be empowered to capitalize on capacity building and not dependency on income.

The capability approach helps reduce and ultimately eradicate people’s behavior to depending on those who survive on income. According to Martha Nussbaum’s article, the elderly, disabled, and children highly depend on people who are on salary. Depending on someone else lowers the productivity level. At the same time, people who others depend on are rendered incapacitated since what there earn is ultimately shared among all people depending on them living with nothing in their pocket. These acts are gender justice since most of the caregiving goes to women from their husbands without public recognition (Nussbaum 5). At the same time, women are put responsible for taking care of old, children, and disabled people, which means they do not work and hence, depend on those in the working class. In this case, those in the working class responsibly feed two people at one time, which makes the burden unbearable. Generally, when people’s capability is enhanced, one can come up with measures for self-sustainability, which other otherwise help in the distribution of richness.

After a close analysis of Martha Nussbaum’s article, it’s clear that the capability approach building should be timed. In the course of human life, people spend their early life precisely from infancy to twenty years on total dependency. This dependency involves both mental and physical aids. Also, at the end of life, which covers eighty years or so, dependence on both physical and psychological ability comes back. The middle years of human life are quite important when initiating capability approach building. Ironically this is the years when a person receives dependency from the old and the young. In this case, if a person does not receive capability building, both the young and the old will have nowhere to depend on, which aggravates poverty levels. Generally, humans are created to depend on others and sometimes to give a chance for others to rely on them. In other words, society exists in a caregiving and care-receiving scenario, and it’s essential to ensure that the ability to be a caregiver is implanted at the right age.

Journalists are often faced with difficult challenges. I recently confronted a particularly distressing one in Afghanistan—one that involves life or death. Let me begin by saying that most reporters question at some point in their careers whether it is morally right to get involved in the situation they’re covering versus following professional journalism guidelines that recommend remaining impartial observers. One may make the argument that a journalist is human and that no story is ever worth a life. I truly believed the man at our military checkpoint was innocent, but was it my call to get involved and tamper with the scene?

Ethically, a journalist should report the story, and not become part of the story, but this rule isn’t necessarily applicable in all cases. As Martin Luther King states in Letter From a Birmingham Jail, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” (4). The difference between just and unjust laws, as Dr. King points out, is the said application of the law. The unjust application he references goes back to the Civil Rights Movement. The reason certain laws are unjust is that the white majority was not held to the same standards as the non-white minority. Let’s examine whether the guidelines journalists are expected to follow should be obeyed in every situation, or if they similarly are not “just”. Hypothetically, if a reporter were on the grounds of a famine-struck area and saw a starving child sitting alone, would following the journalism guidelines of staying on the sidelines truly be more important than doing what most of us would believe is morally right: giving the child some food? Being reporters does not stop us from being human beings with a conscience. Perhaps journalists should get involved in stories that involve life-threatening situations, rather than observing another human’s suffering.

Many of you may be wondering why I did not act on my own humanity and morality, and why I made the conscious choice to get out of the way of fire. The simplest explanation would be that I did not want to forsake my role as a neutral source. The reality is more complex. For instance, I also reminded myself that the soldiers on duty are disciplined to lead with their minds when dealing with abrupt and perhaps dangerous situations. They are trained to spot irregular and potentially harmful sights, and if this man presented a threat, it would be much more logical to trust their judgment. Acting on my own sudden judgment that leads from my heart, which would have been a hasty decision based on emotion, may have put everyone else in danger. Mutiny could have caused the death of multiple soldiers, which is not worth the small chance that this man was innocent.

I made an agreement, as my duty as a journalist to report on situations and refrain from getting involved. Defying these duties, even if the situation may seem unjust, would not be the logical or ethical thing to do. Similarly, Captain Vere from Billy Budd is stuck between a question of morality and ethics: “Our vowed responsibility is this: That however pitilessly that law may operate in many instances, we nevertheless adhere to and administer it’ (111). Captain Vere is stuck between deciding whether to intervene with Billy’s execution, which feels unjust to him, or whether to stand by military law. Vere chooses to ignore his moral sensibility and stick with the basics of what he already knows: his obligation of duty. Vere’s decision, according to the Wartime Acts he was under, was lawfully justified. To do anything else would be a violation of the law and his position. Vere also states, ‘But do these buttons that we wear attest that our allegiance is to Nature? No, to the King” (361). He and the judges were forced to follow their duty, which in this circumstance was to carry out the law. As officers of this law, the morality of the decision was not their choice, because that same law dictated what they were to choose. Vere suggests that the law is already embedded into our minds and that he cannot help but think in terms of it. His situation largely resembles my own. I hope I have successfully illustrated that in his case, as well as in mine, right and wrong are not necessarily aligned with good and evil. Imagine yourself in my place. It may seem evil to let a potentially innocent man be shot, but that doesn’t make it the wrong decision. In certain situations like my own, the law must be obeyed to ensure that we follow our vowed responsibility: however mercilessly our journalist guidelines may apply to a situation, we nevertheless respect it and administer it.

Conclusively, this situation was not a clear and evident one. I didn’t have enough time or information to make a well-informed decision on my own judgment. The best way I could have contributed to this situation was to remain impartial, watch what the experts chose to do in this situation and report on it. By following my duty as a journalist, and if the soldiers were correct, the report could show that the soldiers are in fact well trained and innocent lives were likely saved. If the soldiers happened to be incorrect and killed an innocent man, the story could still be reported in the truest form. As mentioned, right and wrong don’t correspond with good and evil, because the end result of the wrong choice could provide good results, such that my reported story could result in procedures and policy changes that could prevent a mistake like this from happening again.

Abstract

In this paper, the “Rule of Law” forms one of the supreme manifestations in human civilization with eternal values of constitutionalism, attributed to democracy and good governance. Constitutional Law mandates through its provisions and fundamental obligations with the conception of equality before the law, social justice and liberty involve a sense of supremacy and predominance aspiring for the spirit of legality with provisions of fairness and reasonableness, respecting basic human rights irrespective of their status in society to access justice. This rule is one like a golden thread in the Constitution, which ensures the supremacy of law over society.

The dogma of the Rule of law symbolizes that the Law is supreme authority just like the provisions of the Constitution. Here are the important key points in this article about, equality before the law, the rule of law, natural law, liberty, and justice in our society through the rule of law. The judicial control had constitutional act within the scope, says about the rule of law by protecting its life through revolutionary decisions for restricting the abuse of legal powers for protecting our Indian society along with the arbitrary decision. The rule of law is therefore of ‘the voice of justice’ operating at all stages of constitutional provisions. This paper analyses the reasons for the lack of access and suggests reforms, which need to be ensured access to justice for the poor and marginalized population of the rural and tribal communities in Indian society. Access to justice in the Black’s law dictionary is “the ability within a society and other legal institutions effectively to protect one’s rights and pursue claims.” It considers a potential legal system acquiring appropriate legal remedies within the Civil and Criminal justice fields. The Judiciary, being an effective judicial system, has an important role in ensuring access to justice.

Introduction

The term “Rule of Law” has its privilege in depicting its standard meaning in our Indian Constitution framed on the popular notion, which is certainly recognized by two fundamental concepts (i) Supremacy of Law and (b) Equality before law. Today in India “Rule of Law” losing its grounds on the norms of Social order due to “the government of law” can rule the country, which is as called “the Government of a wise man” rule the country. Therefore, here the rule of law failed to achieve equality in India. As explained by author Massey in his book on “Administrative Law”-Rule of Law is one dynamic concept however, it does not mean that there is no agreement on the basic values. It consolidates the rules which are certainly based on the concept of freedom, equality, non-discrimination, and fraternity, which is certain, regular, and predictable.

Rule of law-Concepts

The concept of the Rule of law requires “the government should be subject to law, rather than the law subject to the government.” Therefore it could be regarded as the modern name of Natural Law. Here, in detail, the concept furnishes the foundation for a pragmatic system of governance, that shares the common English inheritance from the statement of generalities. The Prof. de-Smith explains its content that, “laws, as represented by Parliament, can be faithfully executed by officials, that orders of the courts should be obeyed; that individuals wishing to enforce the law should have appropriate reasonable access to the courts; that no other person should be condemned unheard, and that power should not be arbitrarily exercised.”

It has been regarded as a modern name of Natural Law. Jurisprudentially, the Romans called it ‘Jus Naturale’, mediaevalists called it the ‘Law of God’, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau called it ‘Social Contract’ or ‘Natural Law’ and modern jurists call it ‘Rule of Law’. The idea was developed from the French phrase ‘la principal de legality, that is, a Government based on the principles of law and not of men. However, it was Edward Coke who said that the King must be under God and Law and thus afford justification from the supremacy of law over the claim of the executives. In India, the concept of the Rule of Law can be examined by the Upanishads where it providing that Law is about Kings of Kings. And it’s from the legendary days of Adam and of Kautilya’s Arthasastra — the rule of law had this stamp of natural justice, which makes it social justice.

Access to Justice-Its concepts

The concept of ‘access to justice as an invaluable human right, also recognized in most constitutional democracies as a fundamental right, has its origin in common law as much as in the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta lays the foundation for the basic right of access to courts in the following words: “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The concept “Access to Justice” is mostly used in terms of the access to the particular formal institution of the legal system, either individuals in a particular civil or criminal case or a collective group of constitutional challenge”. Prof. M. Cappelletti Rabel a noted jurist in his book ‘Access to Justice’ (Volume I) explained the importance of access to justice that in the following words, “The right of effective access to justice has emerged with the new social rights. Indeed, it is of supreme importance among these new rights since, clearly, the enjoyment of traditional as well as new social rights for their effective protection. Therefore, such protection, moreover, is the best assumable remedy within the framework of our judicial system. Effective access to justice can be seen as the most basic requirement that is to be the most ‘basic human right’ – of a system that purports to guarantee the legal right.

Rule of law and its Constitution

In Indian Constitution, the Rule of Law has been propounded under the Preamble where the paragon of justice, liberty, and equality are enshrined. The Constitution has been established with the supreme law of the country and other laws are required to be required within the meaning of our Indian Constitution. Nonetheless, the courts have the honors to declare any law invalid, which is found in the violation of any provision of the Constitution i.e. Part III of the Constitution of India guarantees the Fundamental Rights. The Article 13(l) of the Constitution marks it clear that all laws in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III dealing with the Fundamental Rights, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. Article 13(2) explains that the State should not make any law, which takes away or abridges fundamental rights, and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. The Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws.

In Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. S.C. Sekar and Others (2009)2SCC 784,

The Court declared that an aggrieved person is left without the remedy and access to justice is a human right and in such situations, even a fundamental juristic content and basis of access to justice as a fundamental right is not provided only by judicial enactments, the Commission for Review of the Constitution has recommended that the access to justice be incorporated as an express fundamental right as mentioned in the South African Constitution, 1996.

Therefore, Article 21 guarantees the right to life and the right to liberty. It provides that no person shall be taken away from his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure explained by law. Here, Article 19 guarantees six Fundamental Freedoms to the citizens of India that is, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to form associations or unions, freedom to live in any part of the territory of India, and freedom of profession, occupation, trade, or business.Kesavanda Bharti vs. the State of Kerala,(1973)4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461,

In this case, it was held that the ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Democracy’ were among the ‘Basic Structures’ of the Indian Constitution not acquiescent to the amending process under Article 368 of the Constitution.

The right to these freedoms is not accurate or absolute but is subject to the reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the State. Article 20(1) provides that no person shall be convicted of any of its offenses except for the violation of a law in force at the time of the commencement of the act charged as an offense is not subject to a penalty greater than that of which might have been inflicted under the law enforced at the time of the commission of the offense. According to Article 20(2), no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offense more than once. Article 20(3) makes it clear that no person accused of the offense or attempted any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. In India, the Constitution is always been supreme and the three organs of the Government are Legislature, the Executive and Judiciary are subordinate to it. It provides a thought of one organ (e.g.-Legislature) upon another (eg-Judiciary) if its action is certainly Malahide and the citizen (individual) can challenge under Article 32 of the constitution if the action of the executive or legislature violates the fundamental rights of citizens before the judiciary system. In India, the meaning of the rule of law has been established, expanded, and applied differently in different circumstances by the judiciary. It is always regarded as a basic structure of the constitution and therefore, it cannot be abrogated or destroyed even by the parliament.

A.D.M Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla, (on 28 April) ,1976 AIR1207,1976 SCR 172

The question before the apex court was, whether any rule of law in India apart from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is applicable or not. The court by majority held that there is no rule of law other than that of the constitutional rule of law. However, Justice Khanna did not agree with the above discussion view. He rightly said, “Even in the absence of Article 21 of the constitution, the State has no power to take away one’s life or liberty without the authority of law.”

Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab v. Om Prakash,(1969)AIR 33,1968 SCR (3) 655

The Supreme Court restated, “In our Indian constitutional system, the important centered characteristic feature is the concept of the Rule of Law which means, in the present context, the authority of the law courts to test all administrative action by the standard of legality.

Judicial Activism Rule of law.

Judicial Activism means the court rulings based upon the political, personal, and prudence of the Judges’ lead over the issue. It is a legal term that is referred to as the court rulings based, in full or in part, on the personal or political factors of the Judges, then the current or existing Legislation. Also, the progress of Society is dependent upon the proper application of law to its Judiciary needs and has to restructure the shape of the law to deal with certain rights and obligations. Initially, the court followed a policy of adhering to a narrow principle and tended to shy away from the progress of the law. However, the mere existence of a particular piece of beneficial legislation cannot solve the problems of society at large unless the judges interpret and apply the law to ensure its benefit to the benefactors. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, Judicial activism is one philosophy of judicial decision-making by which the judges are allowed to make personal opinions about public policy, to guide their complete decisions.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610

This is a landmark case that has been given by the apex court in the case of an increasing number of custodial deaths in India. Where all arrested person has arrestee Rights. Therefore, the right of female employees against sexual harassment in the place of work. The state must preserve the constitution of India and make amendments to the law, which are prima facie in violation of the rule of law. It is the vicarious liability of the state to cease these offenses as the protectors of the citizens who commit them.

Another important contribution of Indian courts has been the liberalization of the “rule of locus standi.” There is a lump sum of people in India who still fall under the category of ‘have-nots’ and are not even in the stand of awareness of their Indian constitutional rights. The principle underlying Order 1 Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure has applied in the process of public interest litigation to entertain the massive class action and at the same time to check misuse of PIL. The appointment of Amicus Curiae in these concepts ensures objectivity in the proceedings. Judicial creativity of this kind has enabled the realization of the promise of socio-economical justice made in the Preamble to the Constitution of India. Supreme Court’s combined power under Article 32 and Article 142 has enabled it to grant relief on the appropriate cause for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The particular horizon of the Rule of Law in India has expanded through judicial activism. The doctrine of public trust enhancement by judicial decision preserves the standard of ecology and environment are incapable of maintaining ownership of nature’s gift and are to be preserved in trust for future generations.

The Right to equality has been emphasized in the implementation of the Rule of Law by activating the statutory duty of investigative crime alleged to commit by holders of high public offices.

Whereas, in the case of Hussainara Kjatoon (I) v. the State of Bihar:

It was held that the prisoners who were under trial had severed the maximum prosecution without being charged for the offense enforced on them. The inhuman and savagely cruel conditions of the undertrial prisoners were reflected through the articles published in the newspaper. The apex court held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right given and directed by the state authorities to provide free legal facilities to the under trial so that they could get justice, bail, or final release.

Vishakha v. the State of Rajasthan,(1997)6 SCC 241, here

The apex court found the authority in filling the legislative gap by making the law to maintain the Independence of the Judiciary and its role envisaged representing the minimum standards necessary to be observed in maintaining an independent and effective Judiciary are just a few pointers in that direction and can be referred to by the members themselves.

Conclusion

The perspective of Law in this article is certainly about, “to live with harmonious and to injure no other man also to render everyone his due.” Whereas, every government has a vital role to play in a democracy which is to protect the rights of all its citizens. In our country also, steps are being taken by both the parliament and judiciary to secure the phase of justice. Many Government schemes were brought for removing poverty across the country, and scholarships were issued to the weaker sections of society so that they can pursue their education without any financial burden.

My chosen social action is the Caritas agency. Caritas was founded back on the 9th November 1897 and was formed by a single man from Germany, Lorenz Werthmann as well as now becoming the second largest network in the world following right after The Red Cross. However, being a large agency they strive to carry social justice although their founding name translates to love and compassion displays their whole mission of defeating poverty and attaining peace and development. Caritas works in as many countries as it can and with several offices in the continents, it can support as much as it can. Caritas gains their support with the help of young students like myself by a single donation in their box with the help of donations from young advocates Caritas gain their goals quicker, they are the true definition of the saying ‘kindness breeds kindness’ as a majority of the donations they receive are always put first towards the vulnerable.

The chosen country that I Caritas have put their action towards to is South Sudan. Gaining its independence in 2011 after separating from Sudan, it is still now the least happy and the poorest country in the world. Mainly made up of Christians however the North side is mainly Muslims this is where a cause of conflict and violence occurred in 2013. The conflicts and violence still remain after five and a half years and losing approximately 400,000 deaths however not all of the causes of death were due to the shooting, raiding but also the 2017 famine that lasted about 4 months where 40% of the population had lost their lives due to extreme hunger. Now, there are over 4 million people who are displaced meaning they are without a home and are looking for one to survive, and about 2 million refugees living in camps near borders. One of the main issues for the cause of extreme hunger is the insane pricing for food and basic necessities generally the prices are multiplied 8 times the amount it is here in New Zealand it is truly a privilege to be able to afford these things.

This is where Caritas is able to come in. Caritas has been aiding South Sudan since they have gained independence in 2011. Caritas has about 20 humanitarian organizations and groups that are around South Sudan that respond to emergency aid that is needed. Since 2011 water pumps have been added, and energy food distribution, items are given such as sleeping mats, pots, buckets, salt, sugar, seeds and tools which are used to help the people of South Sudan earn an income from producing fruit and vegetables and finally providing peace and building opportunities such as workshops for dialogue, education, and other things this has been highly respected by others.

“If one member of Christ’s body suffers, we all suffer. If one member is honored, all rejoice” 1 Corinthians 12:12-26. This passage reflects the ethical principle of Solidarity. We stand by each other whenever there is a hardship. Caritas’ solidarity with the people of South Sudan indicates the idea that everyone is not standing without no support. Caritas has shown its solidarity through the immense amount of love and charity with the supplies they are providing to those in South Sudan. One scripture reference in Galatians 3:28 reflects the idea that nor what race, or gender you are as a human being “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you, are all one in Christ Jesus” this verse shows me that everything matters within ourselves and the actions we take to show our love and support for one another.

In Genesis 1:26-27 ‘Then God said, “And now we will make human beings, they will be like us and resemble us… So God created human beings, making them be like himself… God looked at everything he had made and he was very pleased” This bible reference dedicates to the idea that all shall be respected and contain human dignity as it is a right that all human beings have. In South Sudan, they had lost their Human Dignity and are seen to have no respect. Caritas have provided South Sudan the support, love, and charity over the past five and a half years of violence and conflict within the country and they continue to carry out this principle not only in South Sudan but in other countries in need of aid.

Preferential Protection for the poor and vulnerable is essentially a responsibility that we all were raised to do. As a community, we have a responsibility to look after the poor and the vulnerable as Christ taught us that when we feed the hungry, and clean the poor we are essentially looking after God itself as we are all made in the image of God. It is written in the bible that God has a special place for the poor and that we shall take responsibility to continue our connection with God. Caritas supports this as they are putting the donations that were given straight to those who need it because they are the priority, they are us. This is said in Deuteronomy 15:10 “Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to.”

Task three: Evaluation

Principles – human dignity, preferential option for the poor, solidarity

The effectiveness of Caritas’ actions in South Sudan have saved many lives with the food and water they are able to live with the funds they are receiving and putting directly towards the people of South Sudan, their support and hospitality towards the people have shown me that principle of Solidarity as they are always constantly working together as a large agency to maintain the supplies to those in need. Looking back into the stories, and lives of some teens, elders, mothers, and fathers all different groups of ages I noticed that this quote stood out the most “As Caritas partners working together will help us solve many of the problems for us here in South Sudan” told by Angelo Duik who is an Emergency Coordinator in Caritas Yei that is located at the bottom of South Sudan explains that we all need to stand together to show positive results which I believe has worked and I believe can succeed even further with more coverage to young advocates like us who are voices and the future leaders of this generation.

One tradition from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is “The equal dignity of human persons requires the effort to reduce excessive social and economic inequalities. It gives urgency to the elimination of sinful inequalities” This tradition recognizes the idea of Human Dignity that to gain the ultimate success and perfection of values and respect for one being, this also indicates that as we are all made in the image of God we attain a responsibility to provide our present generation and the future generations a living where not only we are respected equally but the environment, our nation, and possibly the world. God has something planned for everyone and to get there we need to do our part, whether is putting a gold coin donation, or wearing a pin that symbolizes a certain disease or country, our role is to speak beyond the issues that are taking place. Our preferential option for the poor and vulnerable should be something that is in our daily lives whether it is volunteering at a soup kitchen, giving money to the poor roaming for a space, or a home, or sobbing our hearts for those who’ve run out of them.

This project of South Sudan being assisted with the help of Caritas has impacted South Sudan immensely as it saved thousands of lives with the aid of food and supplies that were provided. This allows them to barter to others with the excess food they have to those who weren’t able to gain supplies. I believe that this action shows the ethical principle of Solidarity. I believe that this act that Caritas has shown is effective as the Sudanese people are able to become less dependent on the supplies.

Another effective act that Caritas was able

Task four: Wider implications

Since Caritas works efforts to get as much emergency relief to South Sudan using the majority of the funds they receive however Caritas doesn’t put a lot of money towards advertising to gain more efficient money to support aid. This is where Caritas promotes in schools to students like our age. An example of this would be the Caritas challenge that occurs every year, where students sleep overnight in cardboard boxes, I’ve found that this challenge very often changes the perspective of the students who took part and received an understanding of the privileges they are lucky to have like food, water, shelter, clothing. This motivates them to develop more care for others, our environment, our nation, and the country which could be the first step to having a society where some issues aren’t as large. Like the scripture from the bible “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us… So God created human beings, making them be like himself… God looked at everything he had made and he was very pleased.” this piece of writing in the bible tells me that God, our creator we are made to be like him, we must cherish this and do acts of justice socially like world network, Caritas.