Referring back to Joel Feinberg's (1974) distinction between comparative and non-comparative justice, non-egalitarians object to the moral requirement to treat people as equals and many demands for justice emerging from it.
Based on a literature review and practical experience, the challenges of comparative criminal justice research are uncovered, the strenghts and weaknesses of existing methods identified and a novel method developped.
Equality is thus merely a byproduct of the general fulfillment of actually non-comparative standards of justice: something obscured through the unnecessary inserting of an expression of equality (Raz 1986, p. 227f).
Rangelov, a comparative scholar of transitional justice, notes that "the trials of Klaus Barbie and Paul Touvier were intended to tell the story of French resistance to German occupation and to minimise the criminal legacy of the Vichy regime".
Traditionally (mirroring any other type of legal research) comparative research into criminal justice systems is done individually.
For example, courses in criminology cover topics such as crimes of the powerful, theoretical issues and research on the law and legal control of deviance in society, criminological theory, historical reviews of thought about crime and punishment, and comparative criminology and criminal justice.
Egalitarians may thus conclude that distributive justice is always comparative.
The health inequality between A and B is therefore fully consistent with there being no fundamental complaint of justice about their comparative situation (at least, not on behalf of the less healthy B).
This data source is now being used along with the Australian Founders & Survivors Archive to provide a substantial evidence base for policymakers in the criminal justice system, looking at the comparative effects of punishment and rehabilitation across time and place.
Motive has nothing to do with justice; it is the perception of comparative capability.
