Justice should be impartial because if the justice will not be favour in anybody, the right thing will win otherwise somebody who has more power and money will do the court in his side and the right will not get justice.
For starters, the main goal of the jurisdiction system must not be to punish the guilty, but to spare the innocent - otherwise it will be abused big time. There are countless examples for that in the history of jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction system isn't impartial, the safety of the innocent can't be guaranteed. Let's assume the case where the family members of the victim are responsible for making the judgement.
Family members of the victim (or the victim itself) i.e. aren’t qualified enough to decide if somebody is guilty. Their judgement is clouded by their involvement. Their need for justice — or even revenge — will make them easily believe in the culpability of a suspect — even without efficient proof. They want the responsible party sentenced, so they will sentence anyone remotely susceptible of committing the crime.
But there is more! Lets assume the case when the suspect is guilty. Lets assume (s)he has provably robbed and killed their beloved family member. They will understandably want the worst punishment available, without measuring additional circumstances. They won't care about mitigating circumstances like the suspect wanted to feed its family in need and hunger, or only killing the victim out of the consequence of unfortunate events. They — in their undoubtedly righteous rage — will ask for the worst punishment, even if the suspect doesn't deserve it.
So the reason for the jurisdiction system trying to be impartial is it is jurisdiction
Test
Kritika Trehan 8 years, 1 month ago
Justice should be impartial because if the justice will not be favour in anybody, the right thing will win otherwise somebody who has more power and money will do the court in his side and the right will not get justice.
For starters, the main goal of the jurisdiction system must not be to punish the guilty, but to spare the innocent - otherwise it will be abused big time. There are countless examples for that in the history of jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction system isn't impartial, the safety of the innocent can't be guaranteed. Let's assume the case where the family members of the victim are responsible for making the judgement.
Family members of the victim (or the victim itself) i.e. aren’t qualified enough to decide if somebody is guilty. Their judgement is clouded by their involvement. Their need for justice — or even revenge — will make them easily believe in the culpability of a suspect — even without efficient proof. They want the responsible party sentenced, so they will sentence anyone remotely susceptible of committing the crime.
But there is more! Lets assume the case when the suspect is guilty. Lets assume (s)he has provably robbed and killed their beloved family member. They will understandably want the worst punishment available, without measuring additional circumstances. They won't care about mitigating circumstances like the suspect wanted to feed its family in need and hunger, or only killing the victim out of the consequence of unfortunate events. They — in their undoubtedly righteous rage — will ask for the worst punishment, even if the suspect doesn't deserve it.
So the reason for the jurisdiction system trying to be impartial is it is jurisdiction
1Thank You