If all of you have read merchant of vince were Antonio agrees to be mercy towards shylock , or else shylock property would have been taken away from the government and in that half would be given to Antonio , but Antonio was mercy towards shylock because of that shylock property was saved.
Forgiving those who have hurt or betrayed you releases all the pent up anger you have felt towards that person and their actions. I have been through a lot, I have been betrayed quite a few times in my life, and I learned that mercy can have a big impact. Justice is important but mercy can be a saving grace. I have been involved in a stressful trial for three years, all I can say is I have forgiven the person enough to want them to be rehabilitated rather than punished for what they have done. I think mercy can change both the perpetrator's and the victim's heart's for the better. What is more important punishing past wrongs or nurturing future morality.
When you practice mercy, i.e. forgiveness, you are rewarded by the removal of hatred, resentment and anger. Seeking justice is always imperfect. By striving for forgiveness you are practicing spiritual growth, increasing your serenity and sense of well-being. You are becoming whole, in one with the source of all things.
I believe if a subject is truly repentant and shows they know what morality is, then mercy should prevail, however if that person recommits a wrong act, then justice should prevail. Morality must come into this subject. For Mercy, Justice and Morality there is a common factor, there is the wronged/ innocent and the perpetrator/ guilty. Only truth can decide the outcome of this battle, and this in itself is where we become infalliable.
There is no unbiased judge of what is "just". Justice does harm via punishment regardless of whether that punishment is "fair". One judge can cause unjust punishment via misplaced or disproportionate retribution. Let's say a judge misunderstands the defendant and sees "contempt of court" where there is none because the defendant was of "diminished capacity". This is justice for the accuser and injustice for the defendant.
It's proved that having mercy for the wrong ones is more powerful than justice for the wrong ones.
Giving the justice is like giving a fair punishment. But having mercy for the wrong ones are more powerful because the right ones know how to feel pity and mercy on the wrong ones.
Consider the Bill of Rights in the constitution of the United States. The eighth amendment states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." To expound on that, the Supreme Court went on to enumerate punishments that were forbidden regardless of the crime committed. Thus, someone who is guilty of rape, burning someone alive, or any other such atrocity will not have the same done to him or her as punishment. If the scales of justice were constantly being balanced tit-for-tat for every crime committed, then there would never be any "justice" that is recognized by today's society. Indeed, mercy is already part of today's connotative definition to justice.
Justice, by its nature, assumes an inability to forgive and a need to avenge/right wrongs. If justice is to be achieved, then vengeance needs to be assuaged. The problem here is that vengeance cannot be assuaged by IT'S own nature, it will continue feeding material to be avenged upon by the objects of vengeance it makes. Only mercy can break justice's "vicious cycle" and achieve "balance", the object of many definitions of justice.
This question is wrong!
There can be no true justice without mercy and there could be no real mercy without justice.
If you think that liberating the murderer from the judgement is merciful, think again, is it merciful for all the next his potential victims? And the other way also, if you think obeying laws is unequivocally justice, then what about laws Nazi Germans had?
Justice and mercy are just inseparable, if there is no justice, there is no mercy.
Justice is the stop sign to human progression. Justice demands us to stop, recognize, and pay for all infractions regardless to a persons creed, gender, age, or mental capacity. The demands of justice are ever present and calls for all humans to pay a price. Justice also demands equality, both in price and treatment. All humans perpetrate crimes against society and God at some point. Without mercy there would never be progression, forgiveness, repentance, solace, or change for both the offender and the offended. While justice is always demanded, mercy is a choice, and at times, is an extremely difficult road to travel for the offended. While most justice systems advocate for justice they all promote mercy to some degree or another, otherwise we would have a lot more executions, even for accidental death because justice demands a life for a life. Mercy is more important to humanity, as a whole, otherwise we would never have any learning/teaching moments and change and progression would never happen.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mercy is tupid yo, listen to me. Justice. ,akler amercia great agai nt.
-tru,mp 2016. No nononononon non my name is no. My number is no. My sign is no. You need to elt it go. You need to elt it go. Lal lala lal la la la la meghan trainor.
If someone steels $10,000,000 worth of books. Then starts giving those books away for free. He doesn't deserve any prison time
For those of you who aren't catching on I'm talking about the guy who made reddit. And that is literally what he did. He got 8 years in a federal prison for books that were (for the most part) hundreds of years old, and should be common knowledge by now.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't have punished him I'm just saying that he should have at least been shown leniency for doing what he thought was the right thing even if he wasn't prepared for the hell that the patent company rained down upon him
No society is sustainable without an emphasis on justice. However, because justice is exercised by humans subject to error and relative to laws/statutes that are subject to error, mercy serves as an important backstop to errors in justice. So while there must be justice relative to the spirit of the law, the letter of the law may need to be tempered with mercy.
In some circumstances, amnesty is not an option. There are some acts that are so monstrous in nature that redemption is impossible and the perpetrator (s) does not deserve any leniency. Transgressions that fit that criteria (from my point of view) include betrayal, child rape and enslavement. The appropriate punishment should be death.
Is a hard argument indeed. Certainly, I would love to say mercy is best, but there are so many who do not respond to mercy the way one would like them to. They just kill, kill, kill. I'm talking serial killers here. Many of them feel no remorse for what they've done and if we just cried mercy and let them go, they would kill more people:(
No. Its madness to allow such atrocity. In the end, justice must be served to the most wretched beings.
However it must always be INNOCENT until proven guilty, not GUITY until proven innocent. This is as much mercy as I will allow for those accused of murder or child molestation. If we forgave, forgave, forgave and let these creatures (I know, overkill, but I can't see serial killers and child molesters as humans) walk free then so many victims would pile up and then do you still cry mercy when its been your friends and family murdered and molested, your children who have been victimized??
If a criminal committed an act of injustice, for example: murder, then why should we show mercy simply because of the fact a fragile looking woman or physically small youth committed the act, as opposed to a general male. The victim of this murder, had no mercy shown on them so why should the justice system repay that to the offender. Mercy is a sign of weakness in the justice system and weakness, in the justice system, means vulnerability. By being vulnerable and weak, out justice system removes its aims of deterrence and retribution and sets a precedent that shines guilt on any offender who some think should have mercy cast down on them. But justice is consistent. Consistency in the law makes it respectful. If the law becomes inconsistent, society will lose faith in the justice system and possibly take into action vigilante justice, which in the eyes of the law, is wrong. Mercy only creates more jealous and charming criminals. Therefore if retribution drives, let justice hold the reins.
Mercy is for enemy combatants in war. It is not for criminals. The majority of the time mercy is discussed, it is in reference to criminal punishment. Criminals should be punished to the full extent of the law with no mercy. Mercy only makes criminals more likely to be repeat offenders.
I'm gonna say no- not because justice is more important but because they are he same thing, and therefore equally important. Working off the definitions that justice is what one deserves, and mercy is forgiveness and compassion, I would say they are synonymous. This is all off of my theory that everybody is morally blameless in their actions. Consider this- if you had an involuntary muscle spasm and knocked someone off a bridge, you would not be held responsible , right? It follows that you can't be held responsible for that which you don't control. But one doesn't determine the factors that make someone decide to do something (environment, genetics) and thence forth can't be held responsible. Therefore we should forgive everyone their wrongs since they are not to be blamed for their wrongs.
According to the definition of justice in Mirriam Webster's dictionary, the verb, justice is a process for fair judgement. Mercy is a noun described as "a kind or forgiving treatment of someone who could be treated harshly". In this sense, mercy cannot be used without some form of justice because a judgement needs to be made in order to use mercy. In essence, one cannot exist without the other, they are equally important.