The definition of justice is often thought of as an opinion. This theory is sometimes true, but can cause a huge dilemma. How can we live by the rules when they are not definite? Isn't that what justice is? Living by the rules. Maybe justice is an absolute. Maybe our opinion of justice is just part of the whole thing. Everyone is just seeing a part of the big picture. It may seem that there may not be a definite justice, but it is just something that exists. An example of this theory is the idea of a circle. One can never actually draw a complete circle perfect. This is scientifically impossible. So how does one know that there is a circle? One has an idea of what it is, and they draw their own version of the absolute definition of that circle. This is the same if you look at a horse. All horses are different, so how can you absolutely describe a horse. Is a horse without legs and a tail still a horse? It must be. So how do you know that it is a horse? One would know that it was a horse because they know the idea of a horse. So justice can be thought of the same way, as an absolute. No one can ever reach the absolute of justice, but one can get as close as they can. The death penalty often falls into the category of justice. While I am not specifying that the death penalty is right of wrong, I am stating that it must be just a portion of the true definition of justice. To use the death penalty one must believe that the punishment is equal to the crime, and therefore just. The death penalty is often enforced by Texas, but the degree of severity of a crime is heightened in comparison to the rest of the nation. In particular, the Texas Seven relates to this issue of justice. They are facing the death penalty, for numerous encounters with the law. While some would argue that there actions are directly being punished by the death penalty, others will argue that a person does not have the right to take another’s life. This puts t...
