John Rawls's famous "A theory of justice" firmly established itself as a classical work in the field of political philosophy. There is a huge mass of critical literature on it dealing with various details and aspects. Yet it seems nobody noticed some fatal internal inconsistency at the very basis of the project. That is, the fact that Rawlsian aim to make a theory of justice more geometrico diverges from his explicit belief in the unconditional value of justice and its conceptual independence of rationality.
John Rawls's famous "A theory of justice" firmly established itself as a classical work in the field of political philosophy. There is a huge mass of critical literature on it dealing with various details and aspects. Yet it seems nobody noticed some fatal internal inconsistency at the very basis of the project. That is, the fact that Rawlsian aim to make a theory of justice more geometrico diverges from his explicit belief in the unconditional value of justice and its conceptual independence of rationality.
John Rawls's famous "A theory of justice" firmly established itself as a classical work in the field of political philosophy. There is a huge mass of critical literature on it dealing with various details and aspects. Yet it seems nobody noticed some fatal internal inconsistency at the very basis of the project. That is, the fact that Rawlsian aim to make a theory of justice more geometrico diverges from his explicit belief in the unconditional value of justice and its conceptual independence of rationality.
John Rawls's famous "A theory of justice" firmly established itself as a classical work in the field of political philosophy. There is a huge mass of critical literature on it dealing with various details and aspects. Yet it seems nobody noticed some fatal internal inconsistency at the very basis of the project. That is, the fact that Rawlsian aim to make a theory of justice more geometrico diverges from his explicit belief in the unconditional value of justice and its conceptual independence of rationality.
Trust in Lithuanian police, courts and prosecutors oqce has reached the record values in 2015. Trust and conCdence in these institutions is growing, though it is diqcult to identify what exactly is stimulating that growth. Public relations or media in_uence, or good organization of the institutional work as well as other reason can be an explanation for the better public attitudes. Answers to the question "Do you trust the police, courts, prosecutors oqce?" do not explain what was done properly when trust values raise, and what problematic areas of institution work need attention when evaluations are getting worse. `ere is a signiCcant doubt expressed in academic literature if this and only indicator, so oƒen used for the evaluation of institution work, adequately describes how good or eQectively prosecutors oqce works, police safeguards public security, and courts ensure protection of citizen rights, defence of interests and other demands of democratic society. `e article analyses trust and conCdence in institutions of criminal justice system in Lithuania. Analysis uses ideas and data of two international research projects - EURO-JUSTIS and FIDUCIA. We examine trust and conCdence as complex phenomenon, which include several important aspects: 1) eQectiveness of criminal justice institutions; 2) distributive justice; 3) procedural justice; 4) shared perceptions of right and wrong and shared moral values with institutions; 5) legitimacy of institutions; 6) co-operation between society and criminal justice institutions. Evaluation of the survey data shows that diQerent elements of this phenomenon obtain diQerent ratings, and diQer from the evaluation of trust and conCdence in the broad sense. Understanding of these diQerences gives us a possibility to assess and improve work of criminal justice institutions more purposefully
Trust in Lithuanian police, courts and prosecutors oqce has reached the record values in 2015. Trust and conCdence in these institutions is growing, though it is diqcult to identify what exactly is stimulating that growth. Public relations or media in_uence, or good organization of the institutional work as well as other reason can be an explanation for the better public attitudes. Answers to the question "Do you trust the police, courts, prosecutors oqce?" do not explain what was done properly when trust values raise, and what problematic areas of institution work need attention when evaluations are getting worse. `ere is a signiCcant doubt expressed in academic literature if this and only indicator, so oƒen used for the evaluation of institution work, adequately describes how good or eQectively prosecutors oqce works, police safeguards public security, and courts ensure protection of citizen rights, defence of interests and other demands of democratic society. `e article analyses trust and conCdence in institutions of criminal justice system in Lithuania. Analysis uses ideas and data of two international research projects - EURO-JUSTIS and FIDUCIA. We examine trust and conCdence as complex phenomenon, which include several important aspects: 1) eQectiveness of criminal justice institutions; 2) distributive justice; 3) procedural justice; 4) shared perceptions of right and wrong and shared moral values with institutions; 5) legitimacy of institutions; 6) co-operation between society and criminal justice institutions. Evaluation of the survey data shows that diQerent elements of this phenomenon obtain diQerent ratings, and diQer from the evaluation of trust and conCdence in the broad sense. Understanding of these diQerences gives us a possibility to assess and improve work of criminal justice institutions more purposefully
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.
#e article analyses the justice sector reforms in Moldova. Tracing of reform process in Moldova, combined with the insights of europeanization theories and theories of legal sector reforms, was applied for the identiƒcation of the mechanism, which explains, why the reform was not successful in Moldova. #e main conclusions of the article are: First, to be successful, reform, aimed at the establishment of the rule of law, should include such measures as the establishment of e"ective institutions of accountability. #ese institutions would ensure both positive and negative incentives for the transformation of behaviour by main political and legal actors according to the new rules. Second, the reformers take measures to establish the required institutions of accountability if this is instrumentally rational to them. #e rationality of such political decision depends on both internal and external factor. Political instability weakens administrative capabilities to ensure consecutive and coherent implementation of the reform. Further, interaction of political instability with the public dissatisfaction with reform results induces politicians to use reform as an instrument of electoral mobilization, by making promises of fast results and supporting these promises by new initiatives concerning the direction and measures of the reform. #e focus of international donors on quantitative results, pressure to achieve results as soon as possible and liberal attitude towards various o"ences by pro-democratic elite do not motivate reformers to aim at the consistent implementation of the reform, either
#e article analyses the justice sector reforms in Moldova. Tracing of reform process in Moldova, combined with the insights of europeanization theories and theories of legal sector reforms, was applied for the identiƒcation of the mechanism, which explains, why the reform was not successful in Moldova. #e main conclusions of the article are: First, to be successful, reform, aimed at the establishment of the rule of law, should include such measures as the establishment of e"ective institutions of accountability. #ese institutions would ensure both positive and negative incentives for the transformation of behaviour by main political and legal actors according to the new rules. Second, the reformers take measures to establish the required institutions of accountability if this is instrumentally rational to them. #e rationality of such political decision depends on both internal and external factor. Political instability weakens administrative capabilities to ensure consecutive and coherent implementation of the reform. Further, interaction of political instability with the public dissatisfaction with reform results induces politicians to use reform as an instrument of electoral mobilization, by making promises of fast results and supporting these promises by new initiatives concerning the direction and measures of the reform. #e focus of international donors on quantitative results, pressure to achieve results as soon as possible and liberal attitude towards various o"ences by pro-democratic elite do not motivate reformers to aim at the consistent implementation of the reform, either
In an early Plato's dialogue, Crito, a conversation between Socrates and his close friend Crito is described. The court of Athens – a phenomenon of Greek democracy – had just sent Socrates to death. Nevertheless, the decision of the court, realized in a formally correct procedure, is emotionally unacceptable for both his friends and followers. Socrates does not feel guilty, either, and finds strong arguments in his favour. The conflict between Socrates and the Greek polis reveals the duality of justice and makes justice problematic. Aan attempt is made to reconstruct the formal and concrete premises of two types of justice. One type of justice is related to daily life and thinking and the other to the ethic kind of life and thinking. It is demonstrated that each sphere of activity presupposes a different subject of activity, which results in a different kind of justice. Man is a measure of all things in the sphere of daily life and thinking. Consequently, man is a measure of justice as well. That is why justice in this sphere is relative and could be established exclusively by an arbitrary decision. In the sphere of ethical life and thinking, the value of good is a measure of man. Therefore, absolute justice is possible in this sphere: anyone in any circumstances could remain virtuous and honest. Socrates pursues the attitude of absolute justice: "we must not do wrong at all". Thus, he obeys the decision of the Greek court and saves the soul, i. e. the subject of absolute justice. The present paper concludes with an inference about the meaning of Socrates' choice.
