Thread: On 'The Idea of Justice', by Dr Amartya Sen.

I am reading the preface of the book by Dr Amartya Sen, which is,'The Idea of Justice', with much interest, and anticipation for the future.
A few thoughts arose, when I was reading the preface, and these thoughts arose, out of a need to address an imbalance in my perception about the basic idea of the subject. I feel, that one person cannot administer justice to another, and the other, if he were to expect justice from the first, would he accept that his idea of justice does not meet exactly, the idea of justice of the person expected to administer justice? In the case, can justice be done in measures? Possibly, that is how justice has been seen to be administered by the concerned dispenser of justice. The dispenser of justice, and the receiver of justice, know, that they cannot give nor receive justice in the desired measure. When both the giver of justice, and the receiver of justice, cannot do justice to their sense of justice, then has justice really been served? When does the dispenser dispense justice? Possibly, in his personal capacity. Or, in the case of the court, in the court's capacity. Now, if the law is blind, to the needs of the parties seeking justice, having no personal motive in dispensing justice, in what capacity is the court dispensing justice? If an individual, decides to exercise his discretion of perceived justice, on a willing party, then, also, has justice really been served?
I will add more ideas, later

What is the definition of 'justice' in the book?
I am concerned about the number of people who cannot draw a distinction between 'justice' and retribution. In fact, I tend to feel that the word 'justice' should be dumped, since it is too loaded with emotional baggage.

I would like to see an alternative term that means 'action taken to reduce future offending'. This need have nothing to do with revenge, retribution, or any similar emotional garbage. Just methods used to cut crime.

I have not come across the definition yet. Dr Sen has not defined the term, till the page that I have read, or I have not been particular in my reading. The idea of 'crime', should indict society, and the individual. The society has an equal role to play, with the individual, in preventing crime. This is because, individuals make society, and society is formed of individuals. In a situation where the state does not exist, there, the society need not be paramount.