Justice revisited. Again!
It seems that I have been attempting to define the concept of justice since I was a very young child. I have previously written about it, been a member of a graduate seminar which explored only the concept of justice for a semester, and studied my reaction when I have been adversely affected by a action of another person(s). Despite all this sometimes agonizing exploration I seem no closer to understanding the concept or being able to offer recommendations which would satisfy the needs of the victims of the behavior of other people or events.
If one goggles etymonline.com one is reminded that the word derives from the Latin work justitia “righteousness, equity,” from Justus “upright, just”
Aristotle is alleged to have said in 350 BCE:
“We come now to justice. A specific habit differs from a specific faculty or science, as each of the later covers opposites, e.g. the science of health is also the science of sickness; whereas the habit of justice does not cover but is opposed to the habit of injustice. Justice itself is a term used in various senses; and the senses in which injustice is used vary correspondingly.”
Aristotle distinguished between corrective and distributive justice.
In many communities including the United States, the justice is said to be the core of the legal system and based largely on the assumption that sufficient punishment helps to provide a sense of justice for victims. Thus, on any given day one can read or hear news of the conviction and the sentencing of person(s) who violated the rights of others to a period of incarceration. It does not seem to matter that the victim as well as the rest of the tax paying public will pay a lot of money to enforce this decision. It also does not matter that in this country (and some others) the recidivism rate is very high for those who are eventually released.
There are exception in some courts, most notably in drug courts in the United States, where the goal is treatment and consequent rehabilitation. There are also many other options such as restorative justice being explored by some.
The 12-step recovery programs for Alcoholism/substance abuse, sex abuse, gambling, and other addictive behaviors does not mention the concept of justice per se. The assumption, as I understand it, is that one can admit one’s hurtful/even cruel behavior, apologize and make amends (Step Nine: Made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when to do so would inure them or others.). One does not make any pretense that there is anything one can do to turn the clock back and undo the hurt one has caused. In my experience in working with/for those in recovery and attending lead meetings it does not matter how many people one has hurt, the nature of the hurt, or the extent of the hurt. Everyone is capable of claiming or reclaiming their place at the table of respected and loved members of the community. Hurting others is never okay, but one’s past behavior does not define one.
Obviously there are those people whose brains are incapable of changing patterns if behavior. They may need to be in a protected environment.
It seems to me that as long as we maintain the belief that justice is equated with punishment - that two negatives create a positive – we will continue to create escalating, revolving doors of hate and hurt on the local, national and international level.
Written November 29, 2017
It seems that I have been attempting to define the concept of justice since I was a very young child. I have previously written about it, been a member of a graduate seminar which explored only the concept of justice for a semester, and studied my reaction when I have been adversely affected by a action of another person(s). Despite all this sometimes agonizing exploration I seem no closer to understanding the concept or being able to offer recommendations which would satisfy the needs of the victims of the behavior of other people or events.
If one goggles etymonline.com one is reminded that the word derives from the Latin work justitia “righteousness, equity,” from Justus “upright, just”
Aristotle is alleged to have said in 350 BCE:
“We come now to justice. A specific habit differs from a specific faculty or science, as each of the later covers opposites, e.g. the science of health is also the science of sickness; whereas the habit of justice does not cover but is opposed to the habit of injustice. Justice itself is a term used in various senses; and the senses in which injustice is used vary correspondingly.”
Aristotle distinguished between corrective and distributive justice.
In many communities including the United States, the justice is said to be the core of the legal system and based largely on the assumption that sufficient punishment helps to provide a sense of justice for victims. Thus, on any given day one can read or hear news of the conviction and the sentencing of person(s) who violated the rights of others to a period of incarceration. It does not seem to matter that the victim as well as the rest of the tax paying public will pay a lot of money to enforce this decision. It also does not matter that in this country (and some others) the recidivism rate is very high for those who are eventually released.
There are exception in some courts, most notably in drug courts in the United States, where the goal is treatment and consequent rehabilitation. There are also many other options such as restorative justice being explored by some.
The 12-step recovery programs for Alcoholism/substance abuse, sex abuse, gambling, and other addictive behaviors does not mention the concept of justice per se. The assumption, as I understand it, is that one can admit one’s hurtful/even cruel behavior, apologize and make amends (Step Nine: Made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when to do so would inure them or others.). One does not make any pretense that there is anything one can do to turn the clock back and undo the hurt one has caused. In my experience in working with/for those in recovery and attending lead meetings it does not matter how many people one has hurt, the nature of the hurt, or the extent of the hurt. Everyone is capable of claiming or reclaiming their place at the table of respected and loved members of the community. Hurting others is never okay, but one’s past behavior does not define one.
Obviously there are those people whose brains are incapable of changing patterns if behavior. They may need to be in a protected environment.
It seems to me that as long as we maintain the belief that justice is equated with punishment - that two negatives create a positive – we will continue to create escalating, revolving doors of hate and hurt on the local, national and international level.
Written November 29, 2017
RSS Feed