The essence of justice is impartiality in the question of right and wrong, in other words treating everyone with equal moral consideration in spite of any personal biases one may have. Someone receives justice when they’re held to the same moral standards as others; for example if a woman must shave her legs as a matter of personal hygiene, then so must a man. Someone receives justice when wrongs done to them are righted so they’re no longer undeservedly worse off; for example a victim of theft should be returned their stolen item and compensated for the ordeal. The thief however, for missing wealth after having to reimburse their victim, has suffered no wrong which needs to be righted.

Justice is essential to the goal of absolute freedom because of its universal nature.

Justice vs Punishment and Reward

Many have twisted the concept of justice to mean whosoever harms another must receive equal harm themselves; also known in the Hebrew Bible as “an eye for an eye.” This is used as cause to exact revenge on wrongdoers or punish to deter them or “teach them a lesson.” But impartiality doesn’t mean everyone is served an equal measure of cruelty (or any arbitrary thing;) it means all are treated right despite their differences, including whether one is a victim or perpetrator. A wrongdoer may not be able to avoid suffering as a side effect of preventing reoffense or recompensing the victim, but anything beyond this is pure sadism (or masochism, if the wrongdoer wishes to self-flagellate to alleviate their sense of guilt.) Highly empathetic and sensitive individuals fail to receive any satisfaction from their abusers retributively becoming victims themselves, knowing how unbearable their suffering would be. Because one would not commit violence were they emotionally aware of its effect rather than blinded by hurt, it is always a violation of consent therefore in the interest of victims as well as wrongdoers that justice serves to right wrongs, not perpetuate them.

Another way justice is misconstrued is that do-gooders “deserve to be rewarded.” This would make sense if their “reward” was justice, since this is what sincere do-gooders hope and ought to achieve. Personal rewards like money or fame in excess of any practical requirements appeal only to ignoble desires like gluttony and vanity, and are therefore degrading. It is often cynicism which drives people to reward do-gooders, in the back of their mind they’re aware the supposed hero (even God) is likely at least partly motivated by self-interest and might feel ripped off and not be as motivated in the future if they don’t receive personal gain. But it is the picture-perfect selfless hero, rejecting compensation or praise for their good deeds and donating their big lottery win to charity, to whom we should aspire, and whom we should respect – not expressing this respect by lavishing them and grovelling at their feet, but by following their lead and helping them do their job.

An enormous practical issue with punishment and reward is that it makes it harder to trust the purity of others’ intentions. If someone hasn’t stolen from me, is it because they respect me, or because they don’t want to get in trouble? If my dentist recommends a root canal, is it because I need one, or because it’ll make them a lot of money?

Preventative Justice

If punishment is already unjust, then deterrent punishment is even worse, since it doesn’t punish someone for a crime they’re actually guilty of, but the possibility that they (or someone else!) might someday commit a crime. Besides that it’s not ultimately an effective way to prevent crime, only pushing it underground and hiding those who would commit crime in the absence of punishment.

It is our belief therefore that punishment, especially for crimes committed openly, should be minimized so the antisocial are more likely to reveal themselves, allowing us to take more effective preventative measures. It also allows us to more accurately study the effect of crime, uncomplicated by the effect of criminalization itself.