Abstract This essay is based on the ideas set forth in "The Genesis of Justice", by Alan M. Dershowitz. It explores how the ideal of justice was employed in the bible. Biblical stories of injustice are examined herein (e.g. Cain and Abel), and their effects as directly procured from the Ten Commandments. The paper includes many quotes from biblical passages.
From the Paper "I could not imagine a better manner in which to learn of true justice than the examination of true injustice. In the examination of injustice, we are called upon to summon the innate sense that exists in all human beings: the sense of right and wrong. None of us inexorably knows what is fair or unfair, we simply feel it. There are many outside agents that do in fact guide and effect this sense, yet it is this very sense that allows us to define ourselves as individuals and as advocates of fairness in our own minds. In reading biblical stories of injustice the reader is asked to play the role of a judge of sorts. Although in modern times we cannot truly take on the mindset that was prevalent in those times, we are nonetheless asked to judge the injustices in whatever terms are readily available to us. The fact that we do not live, or even think, in the same manner as people did then does not bar us from being effective judges, as relativity in terms of time and place can never truly be an unalienable excuse for injustice."
Abstract This paper presents the opinion that libraries should not use special software packages that filter out unacceptable speech and materials. The paper compares the discussion to the current topic prevalent in U.S. politics of hate crimes and whether someone can be punished for their thoughts as well as the crime itself. The writer here believes that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and collections of books should not be limited by the personal views of the institution that houses them.
From the Paper "Simply on a level of technological capabilities, this is problematic, given that groups that advocate hate might not be recognized currently, and might not be screened, and groups that do not advocate hate might be incorrectly identified in this ongoing process of identification and unjustly blocked by the software, and tarred with the label of hate. Also, if an individual is conducting research upon, for instance, the American Nazi Party, he or she would be unable to examine the evils of this group, in their own words, and thus open his or her research up to charges of bias and inaccuracy."
Abstract This paper argues that, following the tragic events of September 11th, the U.S. needs to develop and follow a sound methodology for determining when it is time to reconsider moral codes with regard to inflicting torture in order to gain information.
From the Paper "Torture is banned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1984 and has been ratified by 129 countries, including the United States in 1994. CAT defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining information . . . or confession." CAT makes clear that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency may be invoked as a justification for torture." Following the tragic events of September 11th, public sentiment and perhaps even practice regarding these moral codes has dramatically changed, with many traditionally on the liberal side of the fence saying that new rules are needed to fight a new kind of war. However, what's really needed is the following of a sound methodology rather than public hysteria to determine when moral codes should be revisited."
