Two justices

The question of whether “justice has been done” to Osama bin Laden raises a little paradox.
Roughly speaking, one can think of justice in terms of either a process or an outcome. From the perspective of process, justice has not been done; bin Laden did not get a fair trial*. But from the perspective of outcome, it might well have been; if anyone deserves to die for their crimes, it is bin Laden**.
But here’s the thing. In the economic sphere, the contrast between justice as outcome and justice as process is correlated with the left-right split. Many - not all - on the left think that inequality is too high, regardless of how it came about. This is an outcome-based view. But many on the right take a process-based view. This is summed up by Nozick’s famous dictum “whatever arises by just means is itself just.”  And it was also expressed by Hayek:

The manner in which the benefits and burdens are apportioned by the market mechanism would in many instances have to be regarded as very unjust if it were the result of a deliberate allocation to particular people. But this is not the case. Those shares are the outcome of a process the effect of which on particular people was neither intended nor foreseen by anyone. (Law, Legislation and Liberty vol II p64)

Given this left-right split between process and outcome conceptions of justice, one would expect it to the right that is expressing misgivings about bin Laden’s killing, whilst the left would be more relaxed. Bin Laden has been denied due process, but has gotten outcome-based justice.
But this doesn’t seem to be the case. It seems to be some on the right who are rejoicing - though not all - whilst some (though not all) on the left have qualms.
So, why is there this unexpected pattern? One possibility is that although we use the same word “justice” when speaking of economic and criminal matters, it in fact has different meanings in the two contexts (But why?) Another possibility is that our intuitions about justice are just confused. Or perhaps justice isn’t the issue at all. 
* I’m ignoring the question - which some think relevant - of whether bin Laden was assassinated or killed in ordinary military action.
** You can, quite consistently, say that some people deserve to die for their crimes whilst at the same time oppose the death penalty on the grounds, for example, that the process is unfair.

Comments

[FiscalSubvert]

The mode of reasoning Hayek would have used for this case would have faults. The main problem is the blurring of market reasoning with other logics (principally military pragmatics). The basis for debate over the *principles* are confused and this shows in politically ragged positions. As far as I can see, the issue for 10 years has been the US military's shame at not killing BL earlier.

[redpesto]

...or you're confusing 'justice' with 'vengeance', and I'm not sure what economics has to say about the latter.

[BT]

The Right just uses an ideology when it suits it's own interests.

The-market-is-always-right suits the rich who don't want their wealth taxed.

The-government-can-kill-anyone-it-likes when that person is someone the rich don't like.

There is no consistency. Just like right-wing deficit hawks are happy to shrink the deficit through spending cuts, but never through tax rises.

[Phil]

If by 'Left' you mean 'people who take Marx seriously', I think it's a false dichotomy. The point isn't to focus on outcomes rather than processes, but to look at the assumptions on which those processes rest. The freest and fairest competition in the world will be unjust - and produce injustice - if it's conducted between slaveholders.

On the other hand, if by 'Left' you mean 'people who don't actually want to challenge capitalism but just to make life under capitalism a bit more liveable for a few more people in the short run (a modest aim but not an unworthy one, given that in the long run we're all dead)', you may have a point. But also, what BT said.

[Keith]

I like BTs contribution that hits the nail on the head.

Also I think that it is important to say that opposing the death penalty often involves arguments about process and miscarriage of justice etc; in the USA and elsewhere it has been proven for decades to be applied in a discriminatory way with racial minorities and others being the victims.

But the fundamental objection to the penalty of death is not procedural but that vengeance is not justice and criminal punishment should allow for rehabilitation, mercy and forgiveness. The death penalty and extra judicial killing is incompatible with a humane and civilised legal and social order which is why democratic socialists oppose them.

Osama bin Laden subscribed to a theory of religion and politics which supports the use of violence and killing and opposed the liberal values of secular society. However it is exactly these values that are undermined by the use of extra judicial methods and the death penalty ( and Torture incidentally ). "An eye for an eye" is Bin Laden's philosophy not ours, and Conservatives should be as wary of it as any one on the Left of the political spectrum.

Finally may I say that the more I reflect on Hayek's musings on Justice the more I get the feeling he has no idea what he is saying. His arguments seem to be tendentious properganda against the welfare state. Life is hard there's no cosmic justice; there is the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate, just get over it. But we can tax the rich man to give medical treatment to the poor man ( and other things too) and if it increases Human happiness so we should. Property and contract etc are Human choices; society can make different choices. That is Social justice.

[chris]

@ Phil - I wasn't thinking of the Marxist left; insofar as these are concerned with exploitation, they have a process-based view of justice. I had instead the non-Marxist Guardian-reading left in mind.
@ BT - yes. I like to think I was hinting at that.

[chaussures puma mihara]

Finally may I say that the more I reflect on Hayek's musings on Justice the more I get the feeling he has no idea what he is saying.

[Falco]

I think it's an outgrowth of the difference in opinion on what "fair" means. The left view fairness as arising from what people are, the right as flowing from what people have done.

@ Keith: "But the fundamental objection to the penalty of death is not procedural but that vengeance is not justice and criminal punishment should allow for rehabilitation, mercy and forgiveness."

I disagree, some acts are so terrible that there can never be forgiveness for them and whether an act is one of vengence or justice becomes only a semantic argument. However, I don't support the death penalty on the simple grounds that if you have it, then sooner or later you will kill innocent people.