Following yesterdays posting I did receive some comments. I always enjoy that because they do cause me to think a bit more. Most times after having written something I set it aside, at least for the day, having satisfied myself on the topic. But yesterday those comments lead me to consider things a bit more. The idea of " compassionate justice " entered my thoughts. I wondered if justice should be compassionate. My initial thought was, it should not, that justice should be a standard. My thought being justice should be applied equally to every offender. Then, as I often do, I went to the internet to see what others had to say about that. I mean google of course, and search for scholarly works. I discovered there was an entire book written with the title " Compassionate Justice. " Well, who knew? Once again it was confirmed, there is little one can say that hasn't been said before. A gentleman named Christopher D Marshall authored that book. I did read a very brief synopsis. He was discussing two of the parables Jesus told, the good Samaritan and the Prodigal son. He relates how these parables illustrate " compassionate " justice as it relates to " restorative" justice. I hesitate to draw a conclusion based on such a short synopsis but it is my feeling his view is compassion in justice should be shown to the victim, not the criminal. And in that I would have to agree with him. Another friend of mine posted this quote from Ovid: The penalty may be removed-- The crime is eternal. You can't argue with the validity of that statement. The one injured suffers immediately and the pain of that injury lingers. The criminal may come to feel regret for their action, but that feeling is only precipitated by being caught. Do they regret the action, or the penalty imposed for having committed that action? We can't really know the heart of another. Even if those feeling do come from their own conscious, a self imposed guilt, it is the guilt that causes the regret!
There is the question of justice. Justice is for the victim. That is why we talk about restorative justice. The object being to restore the injured party to their previous condition. It would appear to be an easy fix. If you are robbed, your property is returned. But I am concerned with compassionate justice. Compassionate justice would have to be concerned with the victim.
In trying to make the punishment fit the crime. Our system is filled with sentencing guidelines. There are many factors taken into account before a sentence is handed out. In my thinking the system has become generally ineffective because of that. There are just too many variables. You may get, could possibly get, maybe receive this or that based on how good a negotiator your attorney is, or your team of attorneys. To deny that one's social status, race, creed, religion, financial status and a number of other factors don't figure in to the sentencing would be ludicrous. They certainly do! All of that is considered " compassionate. " Thing is, compassion should be shown to the victim, not the criminal. Does crime change its' impact upon the victim based upon the criminals intent? What I mean is, if I kill someone, does it make a difference how I did that? If I am speeding in my car, does the reason I'm speeding change the fact I was speeding? Well that is painting with a broad brush isn't it? Does circumstance matter? It does, to the criminal, not so much to the victim. So where is that happy medium? How do we decide upon punishment? Is it reasonable to expect compassion from the victim? Indeed, is it justice to insist that the victim be compassionate? By the imposition of this " it depends " type of penalty that is exactly what we are doing. Consider a situation where I was injured. Doesn't matter what the injury was. The criminal presents his or her excuses for having injured me. The court decides it is a good excuse, no penalty. Is that fair, is that justice? It is a justice imposed upon the victim.
Ah, the scales of justice. A blindfolded lady holding a set of scales. Unbiased and weighing the evidence. Is that what we have? We did until we decided to factor in intent. How is it possible to weigh feelings? How is it possible to weigh intentions? The object of justice is to restore an equal balance. The balance between the injured party and the one that caused that injury. We can't restore that balance, only mediate a compromise. Then that compromise having been mediated, sentence is imposed. Is it justice? Is it fair to then change that mediation after the fact? I'm talking about reducing the sentence, granting parole. What justice is being served in that regard. The compassion is being shown once again to the criminal and not to the victim.
So, having thought more about the whole thing I haven't changed my mind. Justice should not be compassionate. Justice should be a fixed rigid thing devoid of compassion. You did it, this is the punishment. The only time we think it shouldn't be is when we are the criminal! When we consider that we may be subject to that, we do change our opinion, and quickly. Then we find the exceptions. So just who is the judge? What is the judge? Seems to me judgement is imposed upon the victim more so than the criminal. Well, no one ever said life was fair.
There is the question of justice. Justice is for the victim. That is why we talk about restorative justice. The object being to restore the injured party to their previous condition. It would appear to be an easy fix. If you are robbed, your property is returned. But I am concerned with compassionate justice. Compassionate justice would have to be concerned with the victim.
In trying to make the punishment fit the crime. Our system is filled with sentencing guidelines. There are many factors taken into account before a sentence is handed out. In my thinking the system has become generally ineffective because of that. There are just too many variables. You may get, could possibly get, maybe receive this or that based on how good a negotiator your attorney is, or your team of attorneys. To deny that one's social status, race, creed, religion, financial status and a number of other factors don't figure in to the sentencing would be ludicrous. They certainly do! All of that is considered " compassionate. " Thing is, compassion should be shown to the victim, not the criminal. Does crime change its' impact upon the victim based upon the criminals intent? What I mean is, if I kill someone, does it make a difference how I did that? If I am speeding in my car, does the reason I'm speeding change the fact I was speeding? Well that is painting with a broad brush isn't it? Does circumstance matter? It does, to the criminal, not so much to the victim. So where is that happy medium? How do we decide upon punishment? Is it reasonable to expect compassion from the victim? Indeed, is it justice to insist that the victim be compassionate? By the imposition of this " it depends " type of penalty that is exactly what we are doing. Consider a situation where I was injured. Doesn't matter what the injury was. The criminal presents his or her excuses for having injured me. The court decides it is a good excuse, no penalty. Is that fair, is that justice? It is a justice imposed upon the victim.
Ah, the scales of justice. A blindfolded lady holding a set of scales. Unbiased and weighing the evidence. Is that what we have? We did until we decided to factor in intent. How is it possible to weigh feelings? How is it possible to weigh intentions? The object of justice is to restore an equal balance. The balance between the injured party and the one that caused that injury. We can't restore that balance, only mediate a compromise. Then that compromise having been mediated, sentence is imposed. Is it justice? Is it fair to then change that mediation after the fact? I'm talking about reducing the sentence, granting parole. What justice is being served in that regard. The compassion is being shown once again to the criminal and not to the victim.
So, having thought more about the whole thing I haven't changed my mind. Justice should not be compassionate. Justice should be a fixed rigid thing devoid of compassion. You did it, this is the punishment. The only time we think it shouldn't be is when we are the criminal! When we consider that we may be subject to that, we do change our opinion, and quickly. Then we find the exceptions. So just who is the judge? What is the judge? Seems to me judgement is imposed upon the victim more so than the criminal. Well, no one ever said life was fair.
No comments:
Post a Comment