Justice?

 Once again, I'm listening to the morning news and hearing about the cries for justice. This particular story centered around service members that were discharged from the service for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ as it is known to everyone that has ever served. Now some changes have been made to the UCMJ over the years as attitudes, perspectives and sensibilities change. The same as civilian laws, codes, and regulations change over time. Now the nature of the crime, the charges that were proven aren't what is important here. The importance lies in violating those laws. The cries are for reversing those charges, expunging the record of those that committed those crimes, and some measure of restorative compensation. The basis for that being the law changed. That may be, but the action didn't, the law was still broken.

 We are all obligated by virtue of our citizenship to obey the laws of the land. Indeed, you could say you are obligated to obey the laws of the land simply because you live in that society. Only the method of dealing with violators would be different. In the United States it could be argued that those lacking citizenship are treated better than the citizens themselves when violating our laws. But that is a topic for another day. The deal is this, if you break the law, you should be punished for doing so. Law, by its very nature, is punitive. The Ten Commandments list eight things you shouldn't do and two that you should. The Talmud lists 248 things that you should do and 365 that you shouldn't. So, it's clear to me that laws exist mainly to tell you what not to do. Laws delineate what is wrong at any given moment in time. Breaking the law during that time, while that law is in force and effect, is breaking the law. If the law gets changed at some other date you still broke the law as it existed. Changing the law does not turn back the clock, does not erase what you did from history. You still broke the law. And you are still responsible for that choice.

 The law and justice. There are different forms of justice. Retributive justice, distributive justice, global justice and justice as a virtue. All forms of justice have existed throughout the history of mankind. Some societies leaning heavily on one form or another. But justice is always a combination of these various forms depending upon the offense and the morality and ethics of the people. Justice as a virtue is concerned with individual morality. You are morally obligated to conform to the laws! This latest cry for justice is based in morality. What those people did was violate the law. The law was based on a moral viewpoint however, not a civic one. Exceeding the speed limit as an example would be a civil offense. A moral obligation exists to obey the speed limit, right? Yes, because you are a good citizen. But if that speed limit were changed the day after your offense, or a week later, or a year later should you get your money back, the offense removed from your driving record? No because you broke the law. It was a civil offense. Why then should it be any different if the offense committed was based in a moral issue? 

 There is no difference. The law was broken and that in itself was a moral issue, a violation. The question of the nature of that law, the basis for "justice" not being the issue at hand. The issue is you broke the law, you were tried, found guilty and punished for that. Justice was served. Now changing the law after the fact does not alter any of that. It is what was and cannot be changed. It wasn't an injustice at that time. That's my point. The law may have changed, the morality of the action may have changed, but the action itself has not. Was wrong then, was punished then, justice was served. Tomorrow isn't yesterday until the day after. That's how that works. You can't change yesterday tomorrow. I don't get the sale price after the sale is over. Not how it works. If you broke the law when that law was in effect, you broke the law. The next day that law may be erased, changed, modified or whatever but you still broke that law. 

 Today we are so concerned with virtue that we are losing sight of reality. The reality of life and living in a society. You can't have a society where everyone just gets there way. There has to be laws. What's fair? That's always the big question, always the issue, always the source of contention. Many today seem to have developed some ridiculous notion that virtue means the absence of morality. Morality is what drives a human to act in a certain fashion. In the end, when all is said and done, that is the defining character of an individual. Morals drive your actions your virtue is a reflection of those actions. Displaying good virtues shows others you are a moral person. You are obeying the law regardless of what basis that law has, whether it be religious, civic, philosophical or whatever. The concern should not be centered on showing your virtue but rather in the practice of your morality. Even when your morality comes in conflict with the law the virtuous person obeys the law. You may feel a moral obligation to have that law changed and work toward that goal, a virtuous undertaking, but you don't simply break the law and cry about injustice. Injustice occurs when you are wrongly convicted, not when you break the law.