Justice and equality are closely related concepts, as equality is the ability to convey justice taking into account the specificities or specific circumstances of each individual at a given time. Justice makes it possible to regulate behaviour and situations in a fair and equitable manner. Within a society, there are different types of justice that govern the interactions between members. They are: (1) Theology is unanimous in affirming the existence of juridical justice. S. Thom, Summ. Theol., 2.a 2.ae, q. 58, at 5. Obj. 3 and A. 6, 7. Opposite. de Justitia Dei, § IV, n° 6.
I, chap. VII, points 4 and 5. Lugo, De Justitia et jure, disp. 4, pp. 62-68. 1, d. 1, u. 7. — Lessius, De Justitia, chap.
3. Valentia, in 1.a 2.Re, q. 96, disp. 7, 5, precise. 7. Salmant., Traktat. II, De Legibus, chap. 5, points 59 and 64, etc., etc.
A three-judge panel rules on federal appeals. The complainant presents its legal arguments to the panel in a written document called a “closing argument”. With the court report, the plaintiff tries to convince the judges that the trial court made a mistake and that its decision should be overturned. On the other hand, the defendant of the appeal, known as the “defendant” or “defendant”, attempts to use his or her judicial report to show why the trial court`s decision was correct or why an error by the same court is not significant enough to influence the outcome of the case. F. What is© distributive justice? R. What is: qua bona communia distribuuntur inter partes communitatis secundum proportionem meritorum. Her inner act is the sincere will to distribute the commons with this relationship, and the external act is to distribute them according to her.
In this justice, it is not average arithmetic©equality, but geometric© equality: for example, if the price to be distributed is like six and one has more©rites like twelve and another as eight, four are given to the first and two to the second. [475] (3) The tax must be apportioned equitably. While this principle is simple and indisputable, there is nothing more difficult than to determine in practice the basis for this equal distribution. To demand the same contribution from every citizen, regardless of wealth or economic power, would be to level the most elementary justice. The equality claimed and established by distributive justice is not numerical equality, but equality proportional to the resources of each individual. Suum cuique is the postulate of all justice. What does this assumption mean in terms of taxes? To each the burden which he may bear in the particular conditions in which he finds himself; Everyone has the duty to bear the expenses necessary for society according to its economic power. It follows that the tax must be levied provisionally on what is superfluous, then on the aid and on what is necessary.
The word justice comes from several Latin words such as iure, iovis or iuramentum, all associated with the name of Jupiter, the maximum god of the Greco-Roman pantheon. It follows that the Romans understood justice and law as a divine gift. Understanding justice is not an easy task. Many philosophers have described it over thousands of years – Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Rawls, Ulpian, Thomas Aquinas, among many others, and the truth is that it cannot be explained in a single or simple way, one must always keep a certain approach in mind. In this sense, it is generally acceptable to divide justice into four types: distributive, procedural, retributive and restorative. Since the concept of justice encompasses three elements: distinguishing persons, returning others and paying what is due to them, it is clear that, in some cases, these elements can be modified and altered without destroying the concept of justice. The distinction between persons may be at least legally complete or incomplete; debts under strict or non-strict law; The payment of this precise and perfect debt or simply proportional and up to always lower than the debt. These are the conditions that distinguish the different secondary parts of the judiciary (11). Four types of justice are recognized, each governing specific areas of corporate life: After civil proceedings, the decision can be challenged in a higher court – a federal appeals court or a state appeals court. The litigant who appeals, called an “appellant”, must prove that the court of first instance or the administrative authority made an error of law that affected the outcome of the case.
The Court of Appeal renders its decision on the basis of the file prepared by the court of first instance or the administrative authority – the Court of Appeal does not receive additional evidence or witness statements. This court may also review findings of fact made by the court of first instance or administrative authority, but can normally only set aside the outcome of the proceedings on objective grounds if the findings were “manifestly incorrect”. If the accused is found not guilty in criminal proceedings, he or she cannot be retried for the same offences. The Court of Appeal usually has the final say on the matter, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for a new hearing. In some cases, the decision may be reviewed by the plenary (bench), i.e. by a larger group of judges of the Court of Appeal. Among the common goods of society, mention should also be made of the legal personality of associations. Distributive justice therefore requires that personality and legal protection be granted to all legitimate associations useful for the prosperity of society.
Is he not in favour of recognizing the right of commerce to be represented by chambers and denying this equal right to industry, labour and agriculture? Is it not a social good to which everyone has the same right, namely the right to legal existence and the right to legal representation of professional associations? Formal justice in the West was born with Roman law.