Should justice take sides?

In Socrates’ explanation of justice of the individual he says: it is the mind that leads and decides what is right, the spirit or emotion the pushes us to enforce what is right, and your desires that produce your emotions. When all three parts of yourself are united in friendship or harmony you will be Just. Socrates compares the individual to the city: The King is the mind, the Soldiers are the emotion, and everyone else is the desire.  If all three levels are not in harmony that is injustice.  The lower two levels should be lead by the mind or king. If the other two levels lead it would not be harmonious and thus unjust. What if the king is corrupt and taking bribes from officials, and everyone else in the city are doing what they should? In terms of a person, he has all of his desires and emotions in check, but his mind is twisted. Is it injustice for the soldiers and citizens to lead if the king cannot?

I think Glaucon’s definition, which may sound negative at first, is closer to what Justice really is. Glaucon says to do injustice is good and to suffer injustice is bad. When I first heard this statement I thought he simply meant killing someone or stealing where good things to do. If, however, someone was trying to kill a friend and you killed that person is that bad? What if you only stole in order to provide for your family?  There was good reason behind each incident, but someone had to die or get robbed. To give balance between the good injustices of stealing to provide, and the bad Justices of punishing someone who stole to help others. This is the purpose behind justice. It should not be partial to one person even if he is the King. It should make everyone stand on equal ground.