|
There has always been tension between the demands of justice and calls for forgiveness and between the straight and narrow bounds of justice and the leeways of charity. Just trying to draw the fine line between justice and injustice is problem enough. Justice is measured by conformity to some norm of what is right and proper or tied to provisions specified in a rule of law, but there has never been universal agreement about those norms nor any uniform set of law.
Besides defining what is just, there is the matter of enforcing it and punishing infractions of it. For the whole system to be just, there must be some just restraint, so that no more is demanded than what is strictly just, the enforcement respects all the rights of the individuals involved and the retribution is in proportion to the circumstances of the violation. If into this pot is added the dizzying often contradictory coercions of religious beliefs, interpretations and practices, the vast inconsistencies and contradictions of contemporary legal systems, the pride, enmity, vengeance, greed, criminal intents of many of those responsible for the interpretation and enforcement of justice, then it is a wonder that any justice manages to prevail at all.
There are two images of justice that come to my mind. The first is that of a blindfolded lady, who presumably is not influenced or coerced by bribery or friendship, but just makes her judgment based only on the facts. A noble idea, but how can she see the facts or recognize the deceptions or the true claims of the claimants if her eyes are closed? She has to weigh what she hears and investigate what she is shown before any impartial determination can be made.
The second image is also of a lady, this time balancing the two sides of a scale. Justice is presumably reached when the two sides are exactly balanced. But this supposes that in the pan on one side is nothing more than the bare unbiased demands of justice and on the other side nothing more than the honest unbiased actual realities of the case. A noble idea, but this seems to leave no room or place for forgiveness or mercy or charity or lenience. It is an accurate description of how the discernment of what is just should be reached, but in real life, that is often only the first step in the execution of justice. And in real life, the issues are not always so clear: the evidence may be only circumstantial, vital facts may be missing, or there are contradictory witnesses, so the very balancing act is arbitrary and not absolute.
Following the judgment comes the determination of retribution and/or punishment. This is where the elements of charity, forgiveness, mercy, severity or leniency or even full pardon come in. In a certain sense, if the judgment is truly just than any tampering or mitigation of its demands is in some way unjust. But what if the most important thing is not a harsh slap on the wrist for wrongdoing, but what is best for the guilty person, offering hope of improvement and more positive ways of making up for what has happened? It is often expedient for the good of individuals or the public welfare for the judge to look beyond the bare letter of the law. This is not easy, neither is it always successful. There are many instances in which leniency or kindness backfired and the transgressor went on to further transgressions, but this is far outweighed in the many cases of those whose lives were transformed by the charity and goodwill of those they injured.
This being the case, judges and the victims should always be more like God Himself, who is as ready to exact or demand justice as He is to grant mercy and forgiveness, most of the time combining both.
read Bob's fable on Justice
|
