It seems that PLATO, from so many years before Christ (about 370), knew very well what LEGAL JUSTICE was:
Each ruling class makes laws that are in its own interest, a democracy democratic laws, a tyranny tyrannical ones and so on; and in making these laws they define as ‘right’ for their subjects what is in the interest of themselves, the rulers, and if anyone breaks their laws he is punished as a ‘wrongdoer’. That is what I mean when I say that ‘right’ is the same thing in all states, namely the interest of the established ruling class, and this ruling class is the ‘strongest’ element in each state, and so if we argue correctly we see that ‘right’ is always the same, the interest of the strongest party (Plato, Republic, p.66, 338e-339a).
Each one of us would know of a good number of people who have tried our formal systems of justice and lost the unthinkable in them or for them.
We know of, for instance, Maristela Puget. She lost a son because the wife paid somebody to kill him. It was all over money and he was about 30 years old when he got shot.
Nobody had doubts that it had been the wife. Witnesses saw a lady that looked like her in the car with him minutes before the shot.
It was all in the summons.
The police is so corrupt in Rio de Janeiro that she even started offering teas to them in order to try to buy their good will. Threats have been made to her via telephone, and the life in her left her as what should be the normal procedures of the case in the court took place. Carmen was judged and not condemned. The case went through appeals and things like that. That is when Maristela died from so much desperation, loneliness, and distress.
The lady got away with everything to infinity, but both Maristela and her son, Claudio, died in the process of fighting for their rights to LEGAL JUSTICE.
From what Plato concluded, legal justice is not a possibility unless we are part of the favored class, the class with easy access to the media, for instance, or power.
If Maristela had a gun and allowance to kill, she could have directed herself to Carmen and shot her, for instance. That would be immediate and practical justice.
Claudio would still be dead, but so would be Carmen, the assassin.
Maristela would feel healed in part because justice had happened and she would still be alive.
This is PRACTICAL JUSTICE.
The laws, therefore, in that particular location, where Maristela, Claudio, and Carmen were, and that is Rio de Janeiro, have been serving the purposes of the dominant class, which is, there, the really wealthy and unscrupulous.
Carmen had a lot of money because Claudio had a lot of money. That was the reason to kill Claudio. He was suspecting that she had been betraying him. He told her that. She then killed him not to end up enduring a divorce without any economic gain.
We are suffering atrocities since end of 2001 and crime in general in a first world Country since 2000 because of gratuitous and organized attacks of Veronica Pinheiro Vieira and, later on, a few others. Veronica is not rich, but her husband has a good economic situation and is a Jew. She lives in the South Zone of Rio de Janeiro and was born there. That means absence of scruples most of time, apart from places like the Botanical Gardens. Her husband is also a lawyer who works for the government of Rio de Janeiro.
We did what every good citizen does, which is looking for our rights through the authorities for law and order. We ended up like this.
If we had a gun and allowance to kill, Veronica would be dead in 1999, when she showed no character and we got material evidence of her gratuitous and unprovoked crimes against us.
If Veronica were dead, none of the crimes that have happened to us since end of 2001 would have happened. That would imply saving the life of thousands of people, since plenty of assassinations, some of them formally told to be accident, would have been avoided, for instance.
Killing Veronica in 1999 would not only give us the certainty of justice, but would save the basic rights to life of at least thousands of innocent human beings.
In this case, it is clearly a fact that the legal justice is serving those who are always served and never the little ones. Yet, the promise of democracy is justice for the little ones in the same way the big ones would have it.
We then are absolutely obliged to agree with Plato about 2,400 years later: Justice, as understood by us, is that to favor the interests of the dominant classes.
Our laws seem to help the criminal, not the victim, and our legal systems and authorities seem to protect crime, not to stop it or punish those perpetrating it.
The marginal is always on the lookout, waiting for the right opportunity to arise, which is, basically, what happened to us in that end of 2001. An e-mail sent in mistake or negligently, and the marginal was informed about their diamond opportunity.
The marginal is socially redundant and, therefore, always has time to dedicate to this sort of thing. They are also always prepared, literally with guns pointed at their target. The good person, however, by the time they realize they are suffering crime and try to move, doesn't even have an idea of all the facts involved. They still depend on the authority to dig for those.
Yet, in a court of law, those things would all have to be proven.
What is quicker and more likely to happen: Suffering more crime as we prepare our legal case or succeeding and proving it all in the way we have to? Having an exemplary and incorruptible jury and judge or having people who have a price on them inside of that court? The marginal getting to the right people, corrupt and immoral enough to help them not pay for anything, still in time or getting to really good and honest lawyers, jury, and judge?
It seems that all logic on earth lead to PRACTICAL JUSTICE as the only possible instrument of justice for the good people, the compliant, if something is really serious, say violation of human rights.
It seems that our major concerns, based on all national conclusions in the countries where there is democracy and capitalism, are definitely with human rights and serious crimes.
In this case, nothing is more democratic than supporting PRACTICAL JUSTICE for the good people, what has to mean rights to guns and allowance to kill, perhaps limited to three assassinations in error (to society to judge, post-event, if the person acted with discernment and wisdom, and what has been achieved is justice or not).
You see, we currently have things the other way around, that is, we have PRACTICAL INJUSTICE and LEGAL JUSTICE. Just from writing these expressions, it all becomes clear and evident.
Notice that, in practice, at the moment, in places like Australia and Brazil, thousands of people may die before the marginal gets to be arrested or even prosecuted by the authorities for law and order. Justice, practical or legal, may never happen.
We are then talking about at most three deaths in mistake, when we then would take away the allowance from the good citizen. The toll is meaningless and may actually never be paid (it is possible that they only kill in a righteous manner).