What is more important Mercy or Justice?
Justice is fairness in that people get what they deserve, no more, no less. If someone works hard or behaves in a correct manner, they should be rewarded. The reward should match the actions. If someone does something wrong, they should be punished. The punishment should match the wrong-doing.
Mercy is forgiveness. It is often applied by someone with authority over another; for example a judge in a court of law, or an employer over an employee. Forgiveness or compassion can also be applied by a victim to their perpetrator.
There can be no true justice without mercy and there could be no real mercy without justice. If you think that liberating the murderer from the judgement is merciful, think again, is it merciful for all the next his potential victims? And the other way also, if you think obeying laws is unequivocally justice, then what about laws Nazi Germans had?
Take for example Serial killers They just kill, kill, kill. Many of them feel no remorse for what they’ve done and if we just cried mercy and let them go, they would kill more people without hesitation. No. Its madness to allow such atrocity. In the end, justice must be served to the most wretched beings.
However it must always be INNOCENT until proven guilty, not GUILTY until proven innocent. This is as much mercy as I will allow for those accused of murder or child molestation. If we forgave, forgave, forgave and let these creatures (I know, overkill, but I can’t see serial killers and child molesters as humans) walk free then so many victims would pile up and then do you still cry mercy when its been your friends and family murdered and molested, your children who have been victimized?? In this case Justice is more important than mercy.
But one should see justice in shades of grey like in the following example:
If someone steels $10,000,000 worth of books. Then starts giving those books away for free. He doesn’t deserve any prison time, For those of you who aren’t catching on I’m talking about the guy who made reddit. And that is literally what he did. He got 8 years in a federal prison for books that were (for the most part) hundreds of years old, and should be common knowledge by now. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t have punished him I’m just saying that he should have at least been shown leniency for doing what he thought was the right thing even if he wasn’t prepared for the hell that the patent company rained down upon him. In this case mercy is more important than Justice.
Justice and mercy are just inseparable, When someone has the power -legally or personally- to pardon others for what they have done, they already know that they could have taken their right by the enforcement of law or power yet they choose to show mercy, if there is no justice, there is no mercy. They are both equally important, but the importance of one over the other varies depending upon the situation.
For Plato, justice was one of the four cardinal virtues (along with temperance, courage, and wisdom). Aristotle, Plato’s student, expanded the notion of virtue by arguing that virtuous conduct must occupy some middle ground between behavior that is excessive and behavior that is deficient. Aristotle called this concept the “Golden Mean,” and so a person of moral maturity is one who seeks that mean in all that he or she does.
For both Plato and Aristotle, the Golden mean of justice could be located in the concept of fairness. Justice, as fairness, means that people get exactly what they deserve – no more, no less. If they get more, something is excessive; if they get less, something is deficient.
justice also isn’t the opposite of mercy: if we adopt the premises of virtue ethics as described by Aristotle, we would conclude that mercy lies between the vices of cruelty and and uncaring, while justice lies between the vices of cruelty and softness. So, both are contrasted with the vice of cruelty, but still they aren’t the same, and are in fact often at odds with one another.but still interconnected together. We should find a balance between them.
Let’s look below at two different crimes that each of them lacked balance in justice and mercy.
Anders Behring Breivik Is a Norwegian terrorist – the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks. On 22 July 2011, he killed eight people by detonating a van bomb amid the government quarter Regjeringskvartalet in Oslo, then shot and killed 69 participants of a Workers’ Youth League (AUF) summer camp on the island of Utøya. In August 2012, he was convicted of mass murder, causing a fatal explosion, and terrorism and sent to prison.
He lives in a three-room suite with windows, about 340 square feet, that includes a treadmill, a fridge, a DVD player, a Sony PlayStation and a desk with a typewriter. He has been taking distance-learning courses at his country’s main university. He has access to television, radio and newspapers. He prepares his own food, and he entered the Christmas gingerbread-house baking contest at his prison.
He even complained that microwaved meals that were “worse than waterboarding”. Such a terrorist must be executed in public to be a lesson for others.Not to entertain him with a PlayStation for God’s sake!
the two 13-year-old girls accused of attempting to murder a classmate to impress fictional Internet character Slender Man will be tried as adults. The teens face dramatically different treatment because of the judge’s decision. Children tried as adults face longer sentences and fewer resources while incarcerated, and they’re more likely to be assaulted in adult prisons than juvenile facilities. We are not saying that we should let them walk free but we must take into consideration their age and their mental health condition, They need proper psyhological treatment in a Juvenile facility not an adult one where they could get depressed more likely and commit suicide.
If we applied mercy without justice like in the case of Anders Behring Breivik People will Call for Justice to be served, And vice versa If we applied justice without mercy like in the case of Slenderman Girls , People will Call for mercy to be shown, Both Mercy and Justice is interconnected together and Important to the society to flourish. If you applied justice, make sure you are not cruel to the offender, If you applied mercy, Make sure you are not Cruel to the victim’s family members. We have to be able to strike a balance between the two of them. You can be just but you can also be kind. If you commit a crime, you should be separated from society, but you should also have the opportunity to apologize, be reeducated, and return to society. Also, some crimes should be met with more justice (premeditated murder, rape, etc.), whereas others (stealing to feed one’s family, manslaughter, etc.) should be met with more mercy. It depends on the crime, but the perfect justice system is a balance of both.
justice is imperative when dealing with court cases, but mercy can be used in interpersonal problems. Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution and justice without mercy is cruelty.
The importance of justice
Even if the attempts at justice were a long way from perfect, seeing justice done was important for many reasons.
Alison Des Forges from Human Rights Watch said about the genocides in Rwanda “Justice is not going to erase the memory of the crimes, but it will provide people with some level of closure. At least they’ll know it has been dealt with, it has been talked about, someone has been held responsible and perhaps even, ideally, the victim has received some form of compensation… It is very important that the truth be known, that the people who were killed be remembered and that their killers be acknowledged.” Justice is important because every person will not choose to do that which is deemed right in society. Since justice is the punishment of the wrong and the upholding of the good, justice is then implemented to maintain what is deemed right or appropriate behavior.
Justice helps create a safe environment for people to live in. Without justice, there would be nothing to stop wrong doings from happening and nothing to prevent/punish people for doing things against what has been establish as good. Justice is important because it places a standard of good over all people and demands all people to pay attention to this standard. This could be anything from avoiding a banned action, such as committing murder, or following certain instruction, such as going the correct direction on a one way street. Thus, in an attempt to protect the community as a whole, those breaking the law are punished according to what others find “just”, or right. According to Santa Clara University, punishments are held to be just to the extent that they take into account relevant criteria, like the seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant factors, like race.
That’s why it’s important, it gives “HOPE” to the people who are “INNOCENT” and good. It gives us a belief that everything will work out when justice is served.
It gives of self esteem if someone was raped or if someone was murder it gives us equallibrum. TO know that they can get the death penalty as well.
Importance of Mercy
We all need mercy, because we all stumble and fall and require help getting back on track. We need to offer mercy to each other and be willing to receive it from each other.
You can’t have fellowship without forgiveness because bitterness and resentment always destroy fellowship. Sometimes we hurt each other intentionally and sometimes unintentionally, but either way, it takes massive amounts of mercy and grace to create and maintain fellowship.
Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy.
The Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy (Latin: Iubilaeum Extraordinarium Misericordiae) is a Roman Catholic period of prayer held from the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (December 8), 2015 to the Feast of Christ the King(November 20), 2016. Like previous jubilees, it is seen by the Church as a period for remission of sins and universal pardon focusing particularly on God’s forgiveness and mercy. It is an extraordinary Jubilee because it had not been predetermined long before; usually ordinary jubilees take place every 25 years. The 2016 Jubilee was first announced by Pope Francis on March 13, 2015. It was declared in the Pope’s April 2015 papal bull of indiction, Misericordiae Vultus (Latin: “The Face of Mercy”)
It is the 27th holy year in history, following the ordinary 2000 Jubilee during John Paul II papacy. The opening day was also the fiftieth anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council. In prior months it was stressed that the Pontiff wishes the Jubilee to be celebrated not only in Rome but all around the world; for the first time holy doors are going to be opened in single dioceses, either in the main cathedral or in local historical churches.The first holy door was opened by Pope Francis in Bangui on November 29, 2015 during a tour of East Africa.
Why a Jubilee of Mercy now?
Pope Francis himself addressed this question in his homily for First Vespers for Divine Mercy Sunday.
“Here, then, is the reason for the Jubilee: because this is the time for mercy. It is the favourable time to heal wounds, a time not to be weary of meeting all those who are waiting to see and to touch with their hands the signs of the closeness of God, a time to offer everyone, everyone, the way of forgiveness and reconciliation. May the Mother of God open our eyes, so that we may comprehend the task to which we have been called; and may she obtain for us the grace to experience this Jubilee of Mercy as faithful and fruitful witnesses of Christ.”
An Ethical Dilemma
right versus wrong is easy; it’s right versus right that’s hard.
It’s easy to paint the world in white hats and black hats, good guys and bad. But that world is swimming in a pool of grey. So it’s not that easy to tell which one we choose, Justice or mercy but The Late Dr. Rushworth Kidder, founder of the Institute for Global Ethics and author of many books including “How Good People Make Tough Choices” provides us with a moral compass to guide us in life.
Of course, there are no “right” answers to this dilemma Justice or mercy. Solutions often depend on the specifics of a certain situation and the personal values of the people involved. Still, I think it’s pretty interesting to think about what underlying decision makes something a hard ethical choice. If someone breaks a well known rule – like cheating in exams – should you provide the appropriate consequences or show the person a bit of mercy?
Justice urges us to stick by our principles, hold to the rules despite the pressures of the moment, and pursue fairness without attention to personalities or situations. Mercy urges us to care for the peculiar needs so individuals case by case and to seek benevolence in every way possible. It is right to be merciful. It is right to enforce justice.
Ways of Thinking:
Dr.Kidder draws from the field of Moral Philosophy to describe different ways of thinking about ethical decision making. He describes three:
1. Ends Based: Known to philosophers as “utilitarianism”, this principle is best known by the maxim “Do whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number”.
It relies on being able to predict the consequences of different actions. Like in our example would the teacher simply ask the student not to cheat anymore? or would he take away his papers and terminate his exam? Since you can’t possibly know the teacher’s reaction, End based approach might not be suitable.
2. Rules Based: This principle is best know as the “categorical imperative”. Rules exist for a purpose, they promote order and justice and should be followed. Follow the principle that you want others to follow. “Stick to your principles and let the chips fall where they may”.
Rule-based thinking acknowledges that you can never really know all the consequences of your actions and that it is better to stick to one’s principles. In our example you will act based on your own moral compass, if you are personally okay with cheating you wouldn’t alert the teacher, if you are not you will alert him.
3. Care Based: Putting love for others first. It is most associated with the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is known as the principle of reversibility and is at the center of most religious teachings. Would you feel good if someone did the same thing against you and alerted the teacher when you are cheating? If so you’d alert him or her which is highly unlikely in this case to be honest.
Government Ethics and the Clash Between Rules-Based and Ends-Based Ethical Approaches
The most serious obstacle to the acceptance of conflict of interest programs in government is the clash between government ethics’ use of a rules-based (deontological) ethical approach, and government officials’ use of an ends-based (teleological) ethical approach.
It’s not that these two approaches necessarily require different values or decisions, it’s that they don’t speak the same language, and they judge each other by different standards. In addition, the ends-based approach is easily distorted to make ethical reasoning a worthless bother compared with all the technological, economic, social, and strategic reasoning going on.
In government, doing a good job means getting the best result for the most number of citizens. How you get there matters far less than the result. The process and the rules are things to be taken advantage of, to use, even abuse, in order to get the most for your constituents or to get the result you want (for example, more power or great consulting opportunities when your political career is over). The ends don’t simply justify the means, they often determine them.
This is how government officials are judged. A council member who uses her power, and skillfully manipulates the rules, to get a grant for her neighborhood is considered effective, by both peers and constituents, even if the contract goes to her sister’s firm. A council member who does not use his power or skillfully manipulate the rules, so that the grant goes to another neighborhood, is considered ineffective (and his brother won’t be happy about it, either).
Government ethics is all about rules and means and process, doing the right thing, putting the public interest ahead of one’s own private interests. The result doesn’t matter. The means is the end.
But government ethics is judged, and it has to be promoted, on the basis of the ends it accomplishes. And those are not nearly as clear as the basic values that are espoused. Yes, when private interests come first, taxpayers usually pay more or get less for their money. But how much? And how hard it is to prove!
Yes, citizens will not feel that their interests are important in a government where business associates get the contracts, relatives get the jobs, and information is hard to find. They will participate less, have less trust in government, and give government officials low ratings in the polls. But they’ll still vote for incumbents, still pay their taxes, and the fewer people who attend meetings, the easier it is to govern.
In the end how the government officials behave to achieve their ” goals ” will affect the transparency and the credibility of the whole government, Leading to Injustice which if not resolved, boils up into a revolution like we have seen in the Arab Spring.
The Spirit of Laws and The Merchant of Venice
De l’Esprit des lois Or The Spirit of the Laws is a treatise on political theoryfirst published anonymously by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in 1748 with the help of Claudine Guérin de Tencin. Originally published anonymously partly because Montesquieu’s works were subject to censorship, its influence outside France was aided by its rapid translation into other languages.
Montesquieu spent around twenty one years researching and writing De l’esprit des lois (The Spirit of the Laws), covering many things like the law, social life, and the study of anthropology and providing more than 3,000 commendations.
In one of the best known examples Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, he introduces the quibble as a plot device to save both the spirit and the letter of the law. The moneylender Shylock has made an agreement with Antonio that if he cannot repay a loan he will have a pound of flesh from him.
The conflict between Shylock and the Christian characters comes to a head over the issue of mercy. The other characters acknowledge that the law is on Shylock’s side, but they all expect him to show mercy, which he refuses to do. When, during the trial, Shylock asks Portia what could possibly compel him to be merciful, Portia’s long reply, beginning with the words, “The quality of mercy is not strained,” clarifies what is at stake in the argument (IV.i.179).
When Shylock refuses, And when the debt is not repaid in time she finally saves Antonio by pointing out that Shylock’s agreement with him mentioned no blood, and therefore Shylock can have his pound of flesh only if he sheds no blood.
Though justice be thy plea, consider this—
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy (Act 4 , Scene 1 , Page 9)
Justice won’t save our souls. We pray for mercy, and this same prayer teaches us to show mercy to others as well
The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the “letter”) of the law, but not necessarily the intentof those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.
In The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare there is a struggle between the literal word for word interpretation and the moral conscience of the law. When a law is written are the words on the page what matter most or is it the law’s moral implications that ultimately take precedent? Shakespeare presents us with this quandary in a manner that makes it difficult to consider following the letter of the law, morally lesser, and following the spirit of the law morally higher. There is also the utopian idea that the rules as they are written and their intentions would be one in the same and therefore be of a quality moral standard. It takes a dig on how it is possible to manipulate the laws according to the benefit of the accused – for the greater good like in the play or other purposes- It’s our moral responsibility to make laws that are so simple and plain that it wouldn’t be understood any other way but the way it was intended to, Judges also have to apply the spirit of the law according to the case represented to them when necessary. In order to achieve Justice.
Toward a more modern Justice System.
Thomas Jefferson is one of the founders of USA and arguably one of the most important forces in designing their system of laws is that he never intended for these laws to outlive him or his collegues, He supported rewriting the Constitution every 19 years.
he also had some very poignant quotable comments from his letters, and that is the point of his article. In particular –
“Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.” Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
“Forty years [after a] Constitution… was formed,… two-thirds of the adults then living are… dead. Have, then, the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds who with themselves compose the present mass of adults? If they have not, who has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing, and nothing can not own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident [i.e., attribute].” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42, Now it’s fairly obvious given these writings that this idea was not just a passing fancy of Jefferson. He thoroughly believed this idea. The Constitution and laws that are written by one Generation should expire with the end of that generation.
His argument is to say the least persuasive – by allowing the previous generation to dictate how we live our lives, we are in essence enslaving ourselves to that generation. Slavery is the antithesis to what America is. I’m sure your mileage on this perception may vary, but that’s mine.
But where does ‘adhering to traditions’ become ‘enslaved to the previous generation?’
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) was adopted in 1791 and it is not suitable for the modern society anymore. We need to ban guns and make our society safer. Too many people are killed by guns each year. We cannot ignore this problem any longer. Violence is out of control. Guns are a major cause. They all should be banned – the sooner the better. Many amendments were made under the circumstances of the time period of which they were made. One example is the third amendment, which allows people to decide whether or not soldiers stay in their homes. This amendment was made during the revolutionary war, when soldiers would take over people’s homes for living quarters, because states had their own militias, and the U.S. didn’t have an established army with bases across the country like it does now. Not many American soldiers are trying to take over our homes nowadays. Another outdated amendment is the 12th amendment, which is the amendment that establishes the electoral college. This was made because they only wanted educated people voting. In today’s society however, people know more about politics and have a more clear understanding of who and what they’re voting on. Candidates just use this outdated amendment to manipulate the voting system. And changing the constitution doesn’t “take our freedoms away”.
It’s a very logical thought because after two decades the urge for new laws emerges, It’s a step forward toward achieving Justice in our community.
Wrongful Conviction in the American Judicial Process: History, Scope, and Analysis
Most Americans harbor the presumption that their criminal justice system is fair and blind. Within that a priori delusion, an assumption is made that no person shall ever be convicted for a crime that he or she did not commit (Huff, 2002; Marquis, 2005). The idea that a free citizen could be unjustly sentenced to prison or executed by the State is diametrically opposed to the concept of judicious treatment expected in the United States. Indeed, audiences sympathize with characters such as John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan) of “The Green Mile” and Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) of “The Shawshank Redemption” because the notion of wrongful incarceration is utterly terrifying, though ostensibly quarantined to the realm of fiction (Darabont, 1994; 1999). And the masterpiece “12 Angry Men”
Indeed, every person living in the United States, citizen or not, is afforded the constitutional rights of due process and a trial by a jury of their peers wherein the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a particular crime. This instrument is specifically designed to protect the innocent, rather than obtain convictions (Anderson, 2005; Givelber, 2005). Schoolchildren are taught to have faith in the criminal justice system and told that an innocent person has nothing to fear (Cross, 2005). Under such an impartial system, is it not a virtual guarantee that only the wicked shall suffer? Unfortunately, the judicial process has been plagued by eyewitness misidentification, unfounded and improper forensic science, false confessions, substandard lawyering, and governmental misconduct leading to myriad wrongful criminal convictions (Rattner, 1988). Such revelations gnaw at the delicate social fabric of democratic republicanism.
The American criminal justice system is based on the concept that wrongs have causes, that such causes are preventable, and that injurious acts warrant recompense to victims as well as punishment for offenders (Leo & Gould, 2009). If the problem is to be addressed and rectified, it must first be understood; not as it is perceived, but as it is. The relationship between wrongful convictions and legal procedure is not one of simple cause and effect. Rather, this problem represents a dynamic interaction between defendants and observers wherein all parties play an active role. However, the wrongful conviction trend has only been subjectively accepted by the general public to any measurable degree within the past two decades (Huff, 2002).
A History of Wrongful Convictions in the United States
In September 21 2008 Adrian Thomas was accused of the
Murder of his son Matthew Thomas, he was sentenced to
25 years to life in prison, The case goes as follows:
Four-month-old Matthew Thomas was rushed to the hospital by his father after finding him unresponsive. During the interrogation, investigators told him that it had been proven the child died from blunt force trauma and that they knew someone in the household had done it. They threatened to arrest his wife if he did not confess. He was convicted on the basis of his confession. It was later determined that the cause of death was sepsis. Many more cases are in the references Wikipedia link for whom is interested in knowing more, Currently, the factual rate of wrongful conviction is believed to be as high as 5 percent in rape-murder cases (Gould & Leo, 2010; Risinger, 2007). Nonetheless, many researchers contend that recent case studies have only revealed the tip of the proverbial iceberg (Huff, 2002). Scholars can hardly trend the history and state of these miscarriages as modern developments in DNA technology have been largely responsible for their identification through post-conviction exonerations. Though, the issue is certainly perceived as worsening since innocent people have recently been exonerated in droves (Krieger, 2011). A recent survey study conducted by Zalman, Larson, and Smith (2012) revealed that the vast majority of citizens believed that wrongful convictions occur at least occasionally (55%) or frequently (20%).
If all these wrongly convictions happened in USA, One if the most impartial judging system in the entire world, I bet the numbers are a lot more higher in the rest of the world, So is it possible that Judges make mistakes? Of course it’s possible. That’s why a judge should think a thousand time before nailing his hammer sending a man to his death. Human’s Judgement is not perfect but God’s certainly is.
Justice and Mercy in Various Beliefs
“And Elokim (God of Justice) spoke unto Moshe saying: I am YHVH (God of Mercy)” (6:2).
God tells Moshe that there is only one God. He has both attributes and each one is constantly present. It is only our lack of perception that has difficulty uniting Justice with Mercy. This concept sums up the very basic philosophy of Judaism. “Hear O Israel! YHVH (the God of Mercy), our Elokim (the God of Justice), God is One” (Devarim 6:4)
Mercy is a significant component of the Jewish faith, which teaches that God exemplifies 13 Attributes of Mercy. The idea of mercy also plays a role in Jewish rituals, such as the practice of Selichot — special prayers that help worshipers enter a mindset of repentance. The Selichot service consists of a repeated recitation of God’s 13 Attributes of Mercy. The 13 Attributes of Mercy were given to Moses from God and are recorded in the Talmud. The attributes are based on Exodus 34:6-7.
Mercy and justice are not in competition. In fact, they work together. The justice of God is what sets things right, and it is a good thing. Of course, if you are on the wrong side of God’s justice, you might not think it so wonderful.
Here is how God’s mercy and justice work together:
The justice of God comes and sets things right
The mercy of God comes and sets you on the right side of His justice.
God “does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent” (2 Peter 3:9)
Titus 3:5 says, “he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.” That means good deeds will not earn God’s mercy or favor.
Mercy is never wasted. If the cause of poverty is injustice, mercy is still the best initial response. Dealing with injustice takes time, so the mercy assists the while justice is being established.
With Islam, mercy was given a deeper meaning that created a vital aspect in the life of every Muslim, which he is rewarded by God for showing that.
God’s mercy, which is bestowed on all His creatures, is seen in everything we lay eyes on: in the sun that provides light and heat, and in the air and water that are essential for all the living.
An entire chapter in the Quran is named after God’s divine attribute Ar-Rahman or “The Most Gracious.” Also two of God’s attributes are derived from the word for mercy. They are Ar-Rahman andAr-Rahim, which mean “The Most Gracious” and “The Most Merciful.” These two attributes are mentioned in the phrase recited at the beginning of 113 chapters of the Quran: “In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.” This phrase is a continuous reminder for the reader of God’s endless mercy and great bounties.
Jareer ibn Abdullah reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to people.”
“Verily, Allah has one hundred portions of mercy. Because of one part there is compassion between creation, and ninety-nine are reserved for the Day of Resurrection. “Source: Sahih Muslim 2753, Grade: Sahih
“When Allah decreed the creation, He wrote in His Book which is with Him on His Throne: My mercy prevails over My wrath.” Source: Sahih Bukhari 3022, Grade: Sahih
“I am the Prophet of repentance and I am the Prophet of mercy. “Source: Sahih Muslim 4351, Grade: Sahih
“When those come to you who believe in Our verses, say: Peace be upon you. Your Lord has decreed mercy upon Himself.” Surah Al-An’am 6:54
Justice and mercy complete each other in a perfect synergy,
A world where there is no mercy or full of injustice would be unbearable, You need both Justice and mercy in your daily life, it’s up to you to choose which on depending on the situation.
Here are Some beautiful quotes about Justice and mercy:
A little bit of mercy makes the world less cold and more just.
I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.
Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution and justice without mercy is cruelty.
A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity