I often read books or watch TV dramas. One thing that occurs whether in books or TV a person often finds themselves having to find Justice for a wrong done against them or a loved one. This can be applied to real life is the "War on Terror" in any way "Justice". At what point does Justice become Vengeance? Is justice repayment for wrong doings or is it the setting right of wrong doings?
Question: Is justice by any means still justice?
Please post your opinions.
7 comments:
"At what point does Justice become Vengeance?"
Justice is used to get vengeance I think many times. Often, justice IS vengeance.
"Is justice repayment for wrong doings or is it the setting right of wrong doings?"
Assuming you're referring to the law as "justice", the law does nothing but assign blame, i.e. culpability. We call that justice, but it doesn't set right, or remedy, the original underlying thing or event that caused the problem, it only assigns blame FOR the problem.
"Question: Is justice by any means still justice?"
Ask yourself this hypothetical question: If your little brother stole a stereo, and the only means (remedy) available to the owner at the time, was a shotgun, so he kills your brother with it.....is that justice, for a stereo? Anytime you say "justice by any means", then you have just described anarchy, not Justice, for each individual is deciding what "justice" works best.
i am not certain that there is 'justice'- if you look to the law (as imperfect at tua described)- even within that system, there's justice for some and not for all. justice is a flawed notion- the rich have a different system than the poor. the white different from any other color. is that justice?
I go with King in the Letter from Birmingham Jail--justice is rooted in Divine Law--it is meant to uplift the human personality and bring forth healing to the community. It is a key component to what he calls a positive peace, one in which people feel edified and free to speak their beliefs and unashamed of who they are. Anything unjust is meant to degrade, to place one group as superior over another and to show brute power. It divides community; it does not heal. Thus unjust laws are no laws at all.
Applying it to what we see as justice on the media, we live in a shame based society that feels largely powerless, so they extrapolate that insecurity through the judicial system and the arm of the state--the police. Thus we have a system based on righting wrongs, but it is more like the eye for an eye--this asserts dominance and solves nothing in terms of the root of said crime. Once a crime has taken place, really, what can you do? Kill them? Make them give back your item? Justice can only work when both parties can work out an agreement that benefits both in the end--it solves the loss of the victim and it addresses the need of the perpetrator who committed the crime. I am thinking of Gandhi's idea of the robber when I write this. I also believe that everything I am writing will never take place in America.
All too often, justice takes on a vengeful tone. And again, all too often, the justice is far too harsh. Rarely, does the so-called punishment fit the so-called crime. Misdirected "justice" being billed as justice is far worse in my eyes than a world without any justice at all.
In my opinion, justice has a positive effect; vengeance does not. When it restores what the victim lost as much as possible, and/or genuinely reforms the criminal so that they become a better person, that is justice. A penal system where convicts come out of prison more dangerous than when they entered, especially if the sentence did nothing to return the victim to their previous condition, is neither productive nor just. An eye for an eye just gives you two people with missing eyes.
I was just writing about this on someone else's blog. Oh yeah. Mine.
Agatha Christie once said that the purpose of the mystery novel is to depict the restoration of order. The crime (disorder) is solved (order) by the detective (the official or quasi official authority).
That thinking reflects much about police and crime dramas that you see nowadays. They are narratives of order. Likewise, the way that the press has recently covered events unfolds like a narrative. When reporting on such things as crime and terrorism, the narrative is one of restoring order.
The concept of justice--as defined by Martin Luther King (and Enemy of the Republic) doesn't really enter into this narrative. Instead, this story requires that justice and order be pretty much the same thing.
If you want to go deeper into this, I would suggest looking into the writings of Dr. Chester A. Pierce (Harvard) on the concept of counterviolence. Much of what we see as crime (especially assaults, rape, homicides, things of that ilk) are actually not technically violent, but instead represent transferred counterviolence.
Suppose I came down to Louisiana, and kicked you in the knee, just for the thrill of doing it. Never mind what you might actually do, what would you really want to do to me after I did that?
Certainly, you would want revenge, no?
You could feel like kicking me back, or reciprocating my actions in some way. Most likely, however, what you really want to do is return that kick, and then some. Kicking me back in the knee won't do the trick. You'd probably prefer either to kick me in a more sensitive region, or better yet, just beat the shit out of me.
My action is violent. Should you react by kicking my ass, that would be counterviolent. Thus, there are two main differences. Counterviolence is always a reaction to real violence. Second, counterviolence is often more viscious than the original violence.
Supposing, however, that you couldn't retaliate against me, for whatever reason. Maybe, after sizing me up, you wouldn't kick me back because you wouldn't want to get me mad. Or maybe, I came down wearing a realistic-looking police outfit. In that case, retaliating physically against me could jeopardize your future, your standing in the community, etc. because it would be my word against yours (how would you know I'm not really a cop?).
Still the desire for revenge is still there. So, without realizing it, you might begin to act aggressively to others who don't pose some type of threat (e.g., you might beat your dog--presuming that you have one). That's transferred counterviolence.
It's no surprise to me that people subjected to violence as children grow up to abuse children as adults. Simiarly, people incarcerated for non-violent offenses often undergo extensive violence in prison, and then turn to violent crime. One study of police brutality shows a link between that and spousal abuse. Early in the Iraq war, a number of stories appeared in the local paper regarding their arrests on charges of domestic violence.
There are tons more examples that I could give, but you get the point, I'm sure.
When people want vengence for crime, they are acting counterviolently (often to counterviolence). When they see a crime on TV, they don't just act counterviolently, but they do so by proxy. After all, they weren't kicked in the knee, but rather someone with whom they can identify.
The psychological repayment for wrong can often not apply. If someone kills your best friend, for example, you can't exact counterviolent tendencies and kill them again and again. You can only do it once.
I would say that justice, IMHO, is the setting right of wrong doing. Justice for the potential murderer would entail breaking the cycle of counterviolence. It's not as dramatic as a tv series, and perhaps not as psychologically satisfying, but the results could stop a world of hurt before it even starts.
As to your second question, if I put a chokehold on several suspects before I get the right one, it strains my belief that anyone would consider that justice (although some probably would--perhaps even rationalizing later that those choked had it coming to them anyway for some unrelated reason). The only thing that does is begin a new cycle of violence/counterviolence.
You write very well.
Post a Comment