I understand that the quote is from the Legal system, I just don't understand it. Why would we want Justice to be blind?
121935
the idea is that justice is meant to be blind to prejudice, and should only consider the relevant facts in an objective and fair manner.  \n\nit's sort of like a "blind" taste-test - the results are often different when people know whether they are drinking pepsi or coke, than if they don't know.  this is because they have a preconceived notion of which is better.  in a blind taste test people are often surprised that they choose the one that they "don't like".  this is because a blind test forces you to judge the question based on its merits alone, not based on your preconceived opinions.
336010
God in The Quran says : "...and we have created everything to follow (a certain law)".\n"...deaf, dumb, and blind for they will not return (to the straight path)" meaning disbelievers will intentionally close their eyes, ears and mouths even when the truth is there right infront of them, "...and in their hearts is a desease...".
456283
Isn't being a bad citizen too broad?  Wouldn't major law and guidelines have to be broken?  If not, who would be the judge?  I think that you know that money pays a big part in this consideration.  I think that it an enlightening idea, I just wonder at first glance- how would it be regulated?   Money is the big player.  Thanks for making me think about something different.
48917
Just like all Scripture, this one too, is often misquoted by people who do not understand the context or the meaning. So, while it's sad, we need to pray for them to have their eyes opened and try to gently instruct them (1Corinthians 12:31) "in a more excellent way". \n\nUnless you undersstand the culture of the time, it would be easy to misunderstand the verse. When God gave this law to Israel through Moses, it was set as a "Maximum" penalty. In other words "you shall take no MORE than an eye for an eye".\nExodus 21 goes on to say that if you strike a servant of yours and they lose an eye or a tooth, you should set them free on account of the eye or the tooth.\nLeviticus 24:22 (repeating the same command) the also says that it applies without respect to persons (whether a native or a stranger).\nWhen Jesus Quoted this passage he went on to explain that to fulfill this law means not taking any vengeance.\nMatthew 5:39-49
118820
"As you amble on through life brother, whatever be your goal, keep your eye upon the donut and not upon the hole".\n\n--- sorry, i don't know \n\nAlso: \n\n"What is without remedy should be without regard, what is done is done". \n\n--- Lady Macbeth said this in William Shakespeare's "Macbeth"
444584
The law is the law.The law is blind and the law is an a ss.
670505
You ask: <So is the sanctity of life just a human invention based on self interest to protect itself?>\n\nYes. Probably. It's odd, isn't it that life is sacred for the unborn, but once you're born, you're fit to kill, particularly if you're not American. So, the idea is not a human invention, but probably an American invention (of a particular political group) to advance it's own interests. Like all political principles, this principle is filled with contradictions. Instead of principle, I should have said "slogan".
184806
Your LOGIC Is OK - And It Makes Sense\n\nBut Youre A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN\nStay That Way\nLet Them Continue To Break The Laws\nJustice Will Prevail\nDont Lower Yourself To The Level Of The Lawbreakers
77598
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."\n     --HERBERT SPENCER
608703
Cant be done....the justice system will always be tilted toward those who can afford better representation and can afford expert witness's. the government provides legal counsel for those who cannot afford it but the competence of such is usually woefully lacking...Justice is tilted toward the wealthy as is everything else in a capitalist society...he who has the gold makes the rules...I have considered this many times and there are no clear cut answers to making the system better...I suppose there could be limits set to what the government was going to spend to prosecute a case thereby granting limits to what the accused could spend but I'm not sure this is just if a man is defending his life shouldn't he be allowed to defend himself with all that he has?..then perhaps a limit to what the government can spend....ehhh...not an easy problem to solve.
618879
The whole idea is to make sure that due process is served.  The laws and appeals processe are set so that people (for the most part) are not wrongly imprisoned.
236529
Thats funny,Some of these responses r even funnier though.People just dont get it.If you break the law in this country you get punished for it.Saying that certain people should be immune to punishment because of "Fellings of the Heart"is just plain nonsense.If you do allow some to get away with breaking the law,when others are punished, We all might as well give up and have total Anarchy because this is how it starts.
538476
Great question.  We know that the Old Testament preaches "An eye for an eye" but apparantly Jesus made that rule no longer applicable saying to "love thy neighbor as you love yourself" and to "turn the other cheek".  So I find it very contradictory that Christians support the death penalty (among other things but don't get me started).  This is yet another example of Christians who pick and choose which part(s) of the Bible to follow and which part(s) to ignore.  It just depends on what benefits the individual and supports his or her personal opinions.  Not to mention that Christians are supposed to encourage others to get "Saved" before death, so would they not want to reform a person rather than giving them the death penalty?  Would they not want that person to 'let Jesus into their hearts'?  What a tangled web we weave...
48937
Damien has it but I'll elaborate a bit. It specifically refers to the "thin blue line" (the police) which separates us (the public) from them (the criminals). It's basically supposed to demarcate the protective barrier between the criminals and their victims.\n\nMy only problem with this colourful depiction is this: What happens when the police behave in criminal fashion against members of the public? Who protects us then, eh?
424052
You don't say who made this request to the Coucil and in what circumstances.  It sounds as though the Council is being gently prodded to think things through and perhaps withdraw an action to recover what is owed on the grounds that the person is somewhat deranged or mentally handicapped.  Those hearing the case can't say such a thing outright, but they can drop loud hints to the effect that if a person isn't in a fit mental state to deal with his financial affairs, it is perhaps not a good thing to bring him to court, especially if he is arguing with deep conviction that he doesn't understand why he is being prosecuted and doesn't feel he owes anything.  Maybe now that we are not allowed to use Latin in court, "moral culpability" is the new "mens rea".
470876
I agree with what MLKing said BUT what I have realized as I get older, is that justice is not immediate.\n\nWhat I mean is that say you see an act of evil, a lightning bolt does not come down out of the sky and punish the evil doer immediately. Justice takes time and is a lot slower than the false gains of an evil act.\n\nI guess justice is a double test... one that test our faith and one that test our patience. Remember the old saying, 'What goes around comes around." That is true but you have to wait on it to come back around. lol
304382
Clever typo: The more money you got, the better lawyers you can get & thus possibly get a lesser charge in court.  At least that's what it appears like seeing the news & watching Law & Order episodes... (I don't have any personal experience to this).\n\nSome quotes to ponder:\nJustice is incidental to law and order.  ~John Edgar Hoover\n\nWhen you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.  ~Norm Crosby\n\nAlthough the legal and ethical definitions of right are the antithesis of each other, most writers use them as synonyms.  They confuse power with goodness, and mistake law for justice.  ~Charles T. Sprading, Freedom and its Fundamentals\n\nThe more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws.  ~Tacitus, Annals