Procedural law requires notice and a hearing while substantive due process is governmental objective. Basically, substantive due process has to do with very specific fundamental rights of citizens’ while procedural due process is when a citizen is not awarded the proper procedures under law. Substantive due process is additional to procedural due process. Procedural law is the analysis of how law is administrated while substantive is an individual analysis of the law. Procedural law has to do with both criminal and civil law.
However, it does not mean that criminal justice cannot optionally be ignored. Social justice and public opinions cannot entirely replace national legislations, it should not waive rules of law in order to achieve the so-called social justice. The legislation is a norm that carries public opinions, the process of passing laws is the same as the process of absorbing public opinions. Rihua (2010) suggests that judicature is a process of judgement according to public opinions. In other words, the legislation embodies public opinions, citizens are not only lawmakers but also the final judge of law.
But how do we ensure that these substantive notions of justice is being implemented? That were procedural justice comes into play. Substantive justice is of no use if it is not being implemented. Procedural justice ensures that justice is being implemented. And who implements this justice, is sovereign.
Distributive justice is a recently used theory used by the political and ethical decision maker’s philosophers. According to the Samuel Fleischacker 's on his book “A Short History of Distributive Justice” he have mention that distributive justices is a product of 18th-century Enlightenment thought, and particularly of the claims of the radical French revolutionary. This idea was originated from the great Greek Philosopher Aristotle. However in this led the 20th century philosopher like Rawl 's, Nozick and others a foundation for debate on this issue. 1.1 Justices Justices is the quality of social institution.
Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional. Essentially, judicial restraint works to preserve the laws already in place and refrain from making significant changes to public policies. But much like judicial activism, judicial restraint isn’t perfect; the major flaw of judicial restraint is that it does
INTRODUCTION Given what I have learned about the functions and characteristics of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Conseil Constitutionnel of France – in the context of their respective systems of civil, criminal, administrative and constitutional adjudication – I will discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system in offering meaningful remedies for possible violations of constitutionally protected individual rights from the frame of reference of a United States law student. As a Founding Father, I plan to adopt a body of law founded upon the strengths of both bodies of law. In doing so, I will consider, in order, what characteristics of each body of law is best suited to rule on issues of constitutionality, taking
What is Natural Justice? Natural justice is a concept of common law, which represents procedural principles introduced by courts, which must be followed by judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative agencies during decision-making. Natural justice has principles concerning procedural fairness and ensuring these principles are followed, protects the rights of citizens, enhances public confidence and ensures that a fair decision is reached. Hence, it can be said that natural justice implies fairness, equity and equality. The principles of natural justice were derived from Romans who believed that some legal principles occur naturally and statutory basis was not necessary.
Distributive and Corrective justice are the forms of attaining justice for the reconstruction of unequal social order through the rule of law. Relative equality in treating different persons while granting relief according to need, or reward and punishment according to merit and guilt is the essence of distributive prevent ¬¬¬¬justice. Corrective justice is one of the most influential non-economic perspective of tort law. It is clear from the principle of corrective justice that an individual has a duty to correct the faults his own wrongful action causes. If you have been wronged, consider what kind of justice you are really seaking.
Due process of law is regarded as the most appropriate way to attain justice. Violation of procedure leads to exclusion of evidence in the court. Secondly the position of the court is regarded as that of an arbiter. Both parties contest in the court of law and argue out there cases with facts. The court is to see whether re he parties involved argue the game being played before it is fair and conducive to justice or not.
It is also related to the perceived justice of procedures and consequences of norm breaking. Wenzel (2003) found that there are various types of fairness, which is distributive justice, procedural justice and retributive justice, especially in the context of tax behaviour. Kirchler (2007) stated that, to define distributive justice, it majorly give importance on fair exchange of resources, benefits and costs, which is also equally important in horizontal, vertical and exchange fairness. Whereas, procedural justice give importance to the process of resource distribution. Leventhal (1980) found that, this justice are increasing when individuals accept the principle applied for the distribution of benefits and cost, as long as it is fair; and treatment by taxing person,as well as the person is friendly,respectful and supportive.Retributive justice is about the perceived fairness of norm-keeping measurement.