Sunday, October 26, 2008

On Justice

[This post is a response to the question posed by TheTeach in her comment]

If I should contradict my previous writings, which I may, then I ask for your forgiveness. Learning and thinking lead us to new ideas, which, better or worse, supplant those before them. I may be embarrassed to have not adopted a superior position sooner, but I may feel shame to have not conceded the error in my ways.

* * *

One of my favorite quotes:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Jefferson penned these words, borrowing from John Locke, for the so-called “Declaration of Independence.” Is there any doubt that men should be equal? Is there any doubt of any more fundamental rights than the rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” any doubt that humans need any more or less than this?

Let us define justice as the actions taken to preserve and defend equality and the fundamental rights. A just person does not upset equality or undermine the fundamental rights. Judicial authority, then, should be exercised to protect the public and the individual from the unjust. Usually judicial authority is vested in the State, as its capacity of justice is far more equitable than any other model of judicial authority yet to be brought into common use. Regardless of the institution, however, the judicial authority must take whatever action necessary to ensure that the most comprehensive defense of rights, the most equitable treatment, is executed for the protection of the public and the individual. What may be done to ensure justice varies according to the case. Either correction or elimination shall be necessary. For a correction, the unwittingly unjust should be educated on the error of their ways. For those who insist on the validity of their view, or those whose crimes are severe enough to warrant prudence in justice, temporary consequences, including temporary separation from society (usually in the form of incarceration) can be used to inhibit a person from committing a crime based on fear, if not conscience or reason. Should a crime prove to be uncorrectable or too severe to allow for any error in the administration of justice, elimination of the individual shall be necessary, through either their removal of their role in society through permanent incarceration, or, as some would argue necessary, the termination of their life.

The use of judicial homicide in all cases would obviously be the supreme defense of the public against the recurring injustice of the wicked. However, to indiscriminately employ such a correction would abrogate the fundamental rights of most, if not all individuals. If an individual could be soundly corrected using less severe methods, then to terminate their life would be unjust, for it would not be equal justice—the public would enjoy the complete protection of their rights, whereas the same could not be said of the condemned. Thus, a correction can do only what is necessary to effectively change the nature of the criminal; nothing more and nothing less is just.

How then should the severity of a correction be determined? The best method that I am aware of would examine the perversion of the mind, or the degree to which the individual was conscious of their crime. For example, if a man were to drive on the wrong side of the road, that would be considered criminal or unjust because it not only causes disorder but it is also hazardous to other drivers. If the driver did it because he did not know which side was the correct side, he should be educated on the proper rules of driving and chastised for not observing the movements of other cars and concluding that the direction he drove in was the wrong direction. If the driver was fully aware of driving regulations and the hazards in breaking them and he broke them in an attempt to hurt other drivers, then he should be punished severely for his extreme perversion of the mind. Note that the driver would not be punished severely because he ambiguously “deserved it,” but rather that he needed to be corrected so as to protect the public from other possible injustices resulting from his perversion of mind.

Consider another case. A woman steals a loaf of bread from a supermarket. If she was aware that it was theft and that theft was unjust, but nonetheless stole to feed her starving family, then that would not relieve her of punishment. She stole bread against her knowledge of right and wrong under the misconception that feeding her family outweighed morality; alternately, she could have stolen under the emotional impulse of desperation, but she allowed herself to be dominated by impulse rather than justice. What if a woman of means had stolen the bread as a method of wealth redistribution, an act to deprive the store of wealth, knowing that the theft was considered to be unjust? She would have either stolen under the misconception that the theft was not actually unjust (that those who made it criminal were wrong) or that the righteous ends (of raising up the poor) justified the means. In comparison, the woman of means showed a greater perversion of mind because she had negligently failed to properly rationalize her actions, whereas the poor woman acted under the strong and noble impulse to preserve the life of others. Now, if a rich woman had consciously stolen only to preserve her wealth, then she would have a greater perversion of mind than either of the preceding women. The rich woman would have been acting in the self-interest of her own immense wealth without regard to the welfare of the store and its owners. The money for bread would have been of little consequence to her fortune—money is not of much consequence anyway.

4 comments:

theteach said...

I have read your response, but it will take me some time to work through the rhetoric to determine your essential thoughts. :)

theteach said...

I have a challenge for you. Summarize each paragraph of your blog "On Justice" in 10 words or less.

I continue working on my response. :)

The Monk said...

The Teach,

I have posted my response to your challenge at the following address:

http://tinyurl.com/58uvg3

I have italicized my summary under each of the original paragraphs. I really appreciate your input, especially your criticism, and I look forward to your response. Thank you.

theteach said...

It looks as though my message did not appear.

My "On Justice" extended response:
http://tinyurl.com/5dmmuy