Response

Justice

 

Justice is one of the concepts needed for any society to flourish. Without it every step that society took would be followed by two steps backwards. I believe in the phrase, an eye for an eye. That justice is a fair punishment for the wrongs done. That could. It could mean the permanent end to wrong doings for a wrongdoer, or it could mean a chance to prove they have learned their lesson. To define justice I would say punishment for a wrongdoing is equivalent to the wrongdoing, or fairness.

 

Justice is a good thing, but to be just is hard to consistently do because the wrong is perceived differently by the person wronged then the person evaluating the severity of the wrong done. When I was younger my household was a great example of how hard it was for justice to be consistent. I have three siblings, we are all close in age except for the youngest, and we bicker a lot to say the least. We have many incidents where one wrongs another, most of them committed by me, the oldest. But one thing we always argued about was washing the dishes. I hated washing dishes. We assigned days where each one of us would have to wash the dishes. My days were Mondays and Thursdays, but on Thursdays I would have later practices for football, and wouldn’t get around to washing dishes. That was my excuse anyway, Saturday would come around and my mom would tell me to wash dishes. I would protest because it wasn’t my day, but I would still end up doing them. I always thought that wasn’t fair, but it wasn’t fair for me to skip a day because of my practice. But how do we know what is fair and not fair? Where do we draw the line? To be fair justice must be consistent, and equal the severity of the crime with the punishment with the crime. Like speeding is often met with a fine. Not jail time like murder is met.

 

I think the truth is that justice can’t be consistent because everyone views it differently. One view of justice is different than another’s view. That’s why it’s so hard to be fair. The views might be similar, but just different enough that some won’t be satisfied with how a wrongdoer was brought to justice by the hand of another.  They might feel wronged again, and then try to do something themselves to become satisfied. I would call this revenge.

 

Many western movies, with the sheriff killing the bandit gang that raided the town, revolve around revenge, and instead of calling it revenge they call it justice. The sheriff would ride out into the desert and search for days for the bandits, and when he found them he’d kill them. For years the stereotypical Wild West was all revenge instead of justice. Is justice the same as revenge? If they are different is justice even possible without revenge? Is revenge a good thing like justice? In my high school football career I have played with revenge, and it felt good. I played defensive back, and the other team scored a touchdown on me. The very next play I got to play I laid the same receiver that caught the touchdown pass out. It was a legal hit, and he wasn’t injured. I felt justified because he had angered me, but in reality it was a revenge shot. It was only fair that he got his after I got mine right? The problem with enacting revenge instead of justice in many cases is the problem escalates. Many instances in my life where I would try to get back at someone just caused that person to get even angrier, and it escalated the problem. I was in sixth grade, and my friend tripped me. I didn’t fall down, but stumbled a little bit. Next period I tripped him back, and actually fell on his face. He got up and punched me in the face. I was stunned because he had done it to me, so I figured he deserved it. I was doing what I thought was just. I felt guilty after that because I had taken in too far trying to get revenge.

 

Justice can be enacted at a small scale like a mother scolding her child, or at a large scale like war between two countries. For years wars have been justified by cause. Innocent people killed because their rulers were wrongdoers in the eyes of the other team, so they were brought to justice. But just because you are on the wrong side does that make you guilty? Does it justify your death? What about genocide? Genocide is nearly the same as war. It’s the extermination of another race of peoples because they’re different from another.  It’s been justified for thousands of years by leaders of people all over the globe. Can’t we talk about differences instead of bombing cities, or sending troops to fight? Or is war the answer to any argument?

The line is fine when it comes to justice. Even super heroes struggle with this line. They are often tempted to kill the villain, which would end the conflict for good. But would it be justice?  If you take out one bad guy for the greater good of society, is that justified? That’s why wars are justified, to sacrifice a bad cookie, so the rest of the batch is good.   That’s why a student is sent to the principal’s office, so the student doesn’t ruin the rest of the class’ learning environment.

 

Justice can be enacted fairly and consistently. Every time I didn’t wash the dishes on Thursday I knew come Saturday I would have to wash them, and be brought to justice. It doesn’t matter the severity. All that matters is the consistency that justice has.