Why does money rule over justice?
102808
Because love is expensive. Especially when you pick it up on a corner.
404603
Who told you that life was fair. Its not. Thats the way it is. Never has been, never will be. Best to not waste time trying to get justice, best to spend that time getting money.
1140788
This does not surprise me.  It is very frustrating.  In this world today, it seems like the criminals and murderers get away with everything and the good people end up paying one way or the other.  I know this to be true, it has happened to me and mine by a government who boasts freedom, justice and the American Way.  To bad they can not live up to these ideals in these times.  It's all in who you are and who you know.
755060
In the real world, no.\n\nSubstitutionary justice is no justice at all...it's sick and it's a cynical way to balance ledgers.  Hell, you see some of that going on in the Middle East with groups killing one another:  Someone looses a child to a rival tribe's assassin, he goes and murders some other member of the rival tribe in revenge, the sibling of the murder victim goes out and machineguns a bus of the first mans' tribe...and it never ends.\n\nThe whole thing started with the notion of blood sacrifice to God to atone for sins...goats, sheep, and so forth.  Did anyone notice that when Cain supposedly offered God some of his hard-grown wheat and Abel offered an animal he had caught, God liked Abel's sacrifice more?  God had a fetish for blood, I guess.  And burning flesh too.  Until Jesus's got spilled, then he suddenly got squeamish about it.  \n\nHe didn't die for anyone's sins:  He was killed because he was politically inconvienent and became a martyr to his own cause.  That's all.  The rest of the nonsense got tacked on later.
678400
The upholding of the rights of criminals is the paradox of justice. Perhaps if people just adhered to the lex talionis we should not have so many ciminals and terrorists now. The lex talionis says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." But some philosophers injected the idea that "The law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind." \n\nSo here we are gripped by man's inability to see the distinction between real justice and justice denied.
694651
Justice is a public good in the interests of the whole of society, the costs should be borne by society as a whole until wrong-doing is proved, at which point the costs should be put to the account of the wrong-doer.  The onus must always be on the prosecution to prove wrong-doing, not on the accused to prove innocence.
692560
For one thing, the reason bad things sometimes happen to good people is because of free will. We can't control the actions of other people, and they may do us harm- or, they may do something kind towards us. It's a matter of selection. \n\nBut I respect and honor your question. It's hard to deal with life sometimes. It's like, "Where is justice"?\n\nIn the Bible, it does say that sometimes, the good people reap the bad things deserved by the wicked- and sometimes, evil men live long and happy lives. It's sad, but it's also true. I don't know why this happens- it's not fair. Life is not fair. However, I do believe that God is not cruel.\n\nSometimes, accidents happen, too. That is one way that innocent people can be hurt.\n\nYour question is very legitimate. I will be thinking about this for the rest of the day. Good job, mate!
927900
Nozick illustrates and defends the entitlement theory in a famous thought-experiment involving the basketball player Wilt Chamberlain. Imagine a society in which the distribution of wealth fits a particular structure or pattern favored by a non-entitlement conception of justice - suppose, to keep things simple, that it is an equal distribution, and call it D1. Nozick's opponent must of course grant that this distribution is just, since Nozick has allowed the opponent himself to determine it. Now suppose that among the members of this society is Wilt Chamberlain, and that he has as a condition of his contract with his team that he will play only if each person coming to see the game puts twenty-five cents into a special box at the gate of the sports arena, the contents of which will go to him. Suppose further that over the course of the season, one million fans decide to pay the twenty-five cents to watch him play. The result will be a new distribution, D2, in which Chamberlain now has $250,000, much more than anyone else - a distribution which thereby breaks the original pattern established in D1. Now, is D2 just? Is Chamberlain entitled to his money? The answer to these questions, Nozick says, is clearly "Yes." For everyone in D1 was, by hypothesis, entitled to what he had; there is no injustice in the starting point that led up to D2. Moreover, everyone who gave up twenty-five cents in the transition from D1 to D2 did so voluntarilyand thus has no grounds for complaint; and those who did not want to pay to see Chamberlain play still have their twenty-five cents, so they have no grounds for complaint either. But then no one has any grounds for a complaint of injustice; and thus there is no injustice.\n\nWhat this shows, in Nozick's view, is that all non-entitlement theories of justice are false. For all such theories claim that it is a necessary condition for a distribution's being just that it have a certain structure or fit a certain pattern; but the Wilt Chamberlain example (which can be reformulated so that D1 is, instead of an egalitarian distribution, a distribution according to hard work, desert, or whatever) shows that a distribution (such as D2) can be just even if it doesn't have a particular structure or pattern.\n\nMoreover, the example shows that "liberty upsets patterns," that allowing individuals freely to use their holdings as they choose will inevitably destroy any distribution advocated by non-entitlement theories, whether they be socialist, egalitarian liberal, or some other theory of distribution. And the corollary of this is that patterns destroy liberty, that attempts to enforce a particular distributional pattern or structure over time will necessarily involve intolerable levels of coercion, forbidding individuals from using the fruits of their talents, abilities, and labor as they see fit. As Nozick puts it, "the socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults." This is not merely a regrettable side-effect of the quest to attain a just distribution of wealth; it is a positive injustice, for it violates the principle of self-ownership.\n\nDistributive justice, properly understood, thus does not require a redistribution of wealth; indeed, it forbids such a redistribution. Accordingly, the minimal state, far from being inconsistent with the demands of distributive justice, is in fact the only sure means of securing those demands.
261306
I assume you are referring to the entire criminal justise system as the professional group.\n\nAs in the series Law and Order it involves enforcement as well as the legal profession.  Part of the system is the law makers as well.\n\nPublic policy is not always easy to define.\n\nPower and influence in an ideal democaracy would come from the people but we know that isn't really true, eoungh money will sway public opinion and buy almost any election and swing almost any vote whether it is public or in legistature.\n\nI am not sure what you mean by "playing policy roles"\n\nThe direct enforcers offer direct power.  The police and the judges.  But those who actually make the laws provide the true power and that comes back to the people with money to buy the influence to change laws.  \n\nIt really all goes back to the rich and powerful.
523768
Because some people don't actually believe in material culture. Money is the root of all evil. When you have less, you are more happy.
174327
Money.  Plain and simple.  Other people with money then choose who they think will best protect their investments of money and power.  It's all a system of the elite to keep the "others" and the "have-nots" oppressed.\n\nFR
1184579
Some days ago a Christian on Q/A explained to me that it is like you are condemmned by the court any some rich guy comes and pay the fine so that I have not to go to jail.\n\n\nI am still wondering why should i still have to go to jail after the rich guy paid my fine?
418686
It was spoken about people who love money more than god. For them the money comes between them and God. It's fine to have riches on earth as long as they are not your first love.
1152353
It's all about $$$.  People only care about what THEY can get from something be it a politician or your average Joe.  Morality has eroded and corruption exploded.
288391
If you have enough money and power, you can purchase justice--well at least a not guilty verdict.\n\nLady justice is blind folded because at one time it was the belief that all people would be treated as if they were innocent until they were proven guilty. \n\nNow the media lets us know who is what and we no longer have to think for ourselves.
1174846
Murder is in the Ten Commandments. I think that takes precedent over pretty much anything (unless you mean embezzlement which = stealing which is also in there which means they are equal).
580762
There is a fine line between justice and revenge, but it's a clear line.\n\nWhen somebody is wronged, it is not the responsibility of the one who was wronged to execute justice.  Someone else should do that.  When you take revenge for yourself you are likely to do it in anger, which can cloud your judgment.\n\nThis is why we have the justice system in place.  It is why a judge must recuse (disqualify) himself from a case if he is involved in it.  Justice is, indeed, blind.  Revenge is, in turn, hazy.