I first want to thank everyone for really getting into the character roles today in class. You all did much better than I could have envisioned.
I get frustrated sometimes after hearing how messed up the world around me can be, how the injustices and unfairness can be allowed to grow each day without much opposition or change. Then I think maybe by changing what I do, or how I perceive different things occurring around me that I can improve something. I think the biggest problem I face is that I want instant results, that I somehow became a victim of the instantaneous culture that is so prevalent today. That somewhere along the way I lost the concept of working hard to achieve goals and that I began to think the ends was not worth the work. That I somehow began to think that the only worthwhile change is the one that comes instantly. Maybe I won't be able to alter the injustices today, and probably I won't be able to alter all the injustices I see. Possibly overtime, with hard work, and experience I can put myself in a position where I am able to make a change, and possibly make a path that will lead to a better, fairer world.
I asked at the end of class today the question that is the title of this blog. Many of the responses had the same answer, "not sure." I began thinking to myself when reviewing the answers, "If so many people are not sure what justice is, and I'm not what justice exactly is, then how can justice be properly rendered?" Are people being arrogant when they say justice can be properly administered? Does the definition of justice serve to full fill people's need to define everything?
Then I thought of the symbol commonly used for justice. "Lady Justice," there is so much imagery that lies within the sculpture that it doesn't define justice, instead it adds to the ambiguity of the idea of justice. Why is it a woman who is the depiction of justice? Are women more just than men? Why is she blindfolded? Is it to prevent her from being bias, or is it to prevent her from seeing the injustices of the world? Why does she carry a balance? Why does she carry a sword? Does that mean justice can only be served through punishment? To me, her imagery only adds questions to the already daunting question.
Finally I would like to ask one last question. How do you see yourselves altering injustices through your future careers or ventures?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Dear Joseph,
Thank you so much for giving us all the opportunity to be in the shoes of various individuals in the criminal justice system. Playing these roles helped me and I'm sure everyone else to understand the difficulties in how the system works and the issues that arise with lack of evidence.
Going back to your post, I just want to say that your not the only one who thinks the idea of justice is really something that is hard to define. Your right people say "lady justice" or you have commercials of the Marines and they have their uniforms and they represent physical justice, or you have the court room where justice is to be served; but at the end of the day, what is justice?
Justice is a complex word and ideal to define. It is complex because so many divergent ideals come onto the table in which many people will agree with, disagree with, some what side on, and others who will just stick to their own ideals and say "forget everyone else".
Like I said in class, one of the most difficult things to understand and endure in the international level (criminal justice wise) is the fact that terms, crimes, and treaties aren't all binding, hard law, and abided by. The problem with criminal justice in the international level is the lack of international law enforcement to punish states who break treaty obligations and if its not that, its the states who never ratified the Roman Statute and can't be tried in the international criminal court.
So at the end of the day, while states have conventions against torture or genocide, justice in many ways isn't 100% served because higher officials are always trying to protect themselves from losing the power they have.
Similar to the book, the officer wasn't tried because of the immunities he had; had he not had those immunities he would have been tried. Same if states all ratified each and every treaty, the International court would finally serve a purpose in bringing justice to victims of state terrorism, human rights violations committed by the states, and ect.
Overall, I hope to make a difference by making the ICC a powerful entity in which state officials who break treaty obligations are finally taken into justice and free victimized citizens from a life of injustice. Its ambitious, but it doesn't mean it can't happen throughout time.
Joseph, I was so intrigued by your delving into the representational art of Lady Justice that I looked up her origins. The statue represents the Greek goddess of justice and law, Themis. (Egypt and Rome also had goddesses representing Justice, not to be confused with any of Charlie Sheen’s goddesses). The earliest source of this image comes from the lyric poems of Bacchylides in 5th century B.C. Traditionally, the scales symbolize a kind of objectivity or impartiality, a perspective that balances divergent interests. The sword stands for the power of the state. Images of Justice as blind or blindfolded began to appear in the 15th Century, suggesting that the lady didn’t play favorites. This was around the same time that the first insane asylum was built, so draw your own conclusions.
The image for me is a nest of contradictions. The sword is double-edged, cuts both ways, has both favorable and unfavorable, unintended consequences. As many of you delineate in your perspectives papers, the tensions between things like liberty and order, freedom and safety, empowering and enabling are constant judicial concerns. Even the blindness has unintended consequences. For instance, if we are blind to past injustice how can we ever have an equitable solution? On the other hand, when we right a past wrong with actions that effect different individuals than the ones who profited by the original injustice, how is that fair? This comes up all the time in discussions of reparative solutions like affirmative action. The ideal of justice-like much in our world-is embodied in the struggle of competing interests to find a reasonably equitable resolution, not a perfect one. If you think about Joseph's class, each person got a piece of what they wanted. Far from ideal justice but a "fair enough" outcome.
Jessica you make a great point. Many people try to protect themselves and keep power in their hands, so how can those individuals be persuaded to find a common ground for justice while also protecting themselves? Is that an attainable goal? How can the ICC become a powerful entity?
Professor Stein, You can’t mess with Mr. Sheen, “he’s special!”
I’m glad you see the contradictions in the image of “Lady Justice.” Usually images are meant to symbolize ideas or explain ideas without the need to be literate. If I was to come across her image and was told she represented justice, I would begin to think that justice is a scary concept. You also make a good point that the sculpture had a blindfold added to it to represent impartiality and at the same time the first insane asylums were built. Maybe the sculpture was trying to protect “Lady Justice” from seeing the horrors that humans can inflict upon one another, and the lack of justice in the world.
I am truly sorry that I missed what sounds like a very interesting class Joseph. I am particularly interested in the issue of justice from the standpoint of society’s marginalized, racialized and subaltern bodies. Unfortunately I have come to a grim conclusion to the question of justice; justice does not exist. The idea of Justice is simply a subterfuge, a conundrum where the intellectual and the “civilized” man can escape to in an attempt to avoid the real work of alleviating society’s problems. J.M. Coetzee helped me to come to this understanding from his text Waiting for the Barbarians; he says,
Justice: once that word is uttered, where will it end? Easier to shout No! Easier to be beaten and mad a martyr. Easier to lay my head on a block than to defend the cause of justice for the barbarians: for where can that argument lead but to laying down our arms and opening the gates of the town to the people whose land we have raped....
The idea that justice cannot be found for the underprivileged does not damn them to their fate. It is first an acknowledgement of the precarious nature of our endeavors against systems of domination but allows us to evaluate and interpret the “real work” to be done to alleviate social domination.
My role in this, as Cotezee indicates, is to scream “NO” in whatever capacity I find myself. If I become a professor, as I hope I will, I will make this dissent in the form of scholarship and attempt to not be caught up solely in the world of the theoretical while the world of materiality and existential issues becomes lost.
Chad Out!
Chad I have to admit I am a little dismayed by your response. I’m not sure if I’m correct in this statement, but were you interested in the Native American culture, especially in terms of teaching (pedagogy)? Is it true that many Native American tribes did not have possessive words, such as “mine” or “yours,” that they considered goods and objects to be “ours”? So it troubles me the last sentence you wrote in which you wish to defend “the world of materiality.” Could it be said that existential issues are in fact part of theoretical thought and a form of philosophy and that justice as a philosophy would fall under that category of studying human existence?
You also stated that “The idea of Justice is simply a subterfuge, a conundrum where the intellectual and the “civilized” man can escape to in an attempt to avoid the real work of alleviating society’s problems.” Could justice be a goal which people are meant to aspire to? Is justice an idea that is never really complete (as Jessica and other students have stated)?
You also stated that justice does not exist. There are a tribe of people in the Kalahari Desert who are descendents of ancient Paleolithic people. They are called the San people, and they number about 50,000 to 80,000 by the start of the 21st Century (Strayer, 2009). Within the San people there is a group called the Ju/’hoansi or “real people.” (Strayer, 2009). When a study was performed it was found out that they have “no chiefs, priests or specialists, and that decisions were made by individual families after much discussion.” (Strayer, p.26). The anthropologist also found out that there have been about 26 murders in the recent history of the Ju/’hoansi people and that the community of the people came together to conduct an investigation and execution. In cases of lesser transgressions the tribe would either handle the issues through talks, exile of the disruptive individual or with individuals deciding to join another tribe. (Strayer, 2009). This to me seems like justice and it exists today. We call these people “primitive,” I think they are truly civilized. I have to agree with you, that our civilize society is losing some core ideas of justcie
As to your quote from J.M. Coetzee, it seems as though he is trying to warn us of our capacity to do injustices, and in this warning he is trying to state that justice is hard to defend. Since he is stating that it is hard to defend is he not also recognizing that it exists?
I must give props to Joseph for facilitating a well organized and thoughtful class lesson. You made me seem like one of those awful professors that gets bad reviews on RateMyProfessor.com.
I love that you brought up “Lady Justice”. In one of my courses we had the same task, to dissect the meaning behind those symbols. And I agree, that the statue surely does not depict our criminal justice system. In fact, I find it insulting that she is a woman, yet so many of the people making decisions are men. And so many of the lives in those men’s hands are women.
I wrote a whole explanation of what justice is, and is not, using my own personal experience to demonstrate that. I have decided to keep it short and sweet instead. I don’t think it even matters to average citizens what justice is. Justice is no longer in the hands of people who seek it. We are instead forced to leave it up to people who get paid to execute justice in whatever fashion they feel is suitable. I am sure that anyone who is a crime victim still feels no justice even when they hear that guilty verdict. As mentioned in class, no sentence will ever erase the crime that was committed. Justice is something that can be debated, as can many other issues related to the topic of justice. Until we devise a more representative definition of what constitutes a crime, a violation of human rights, I don’t even see the sense in discussing justice.
As most of you already know, I do not find it helpful to become a lawyer, or police officer, or judge with hopes of correcting injustices, as I believe that it is these very people who commit acts of injustice themselves. Instead, I would like to work for a non-profit, freelance, create my own agency, be a journalist, a documentary film maker. I want to do anything I can to expose the immense amount of crimes being committed against citizens, not only by those that fit the average perception of a “criminal”, but more so by those predators that are supposed to be protecting citizens.
Joseph, thank you for organizing a great class and for writing such a thoughtful post. Your careful planning resulted in a seminar session that was fun, enlightening, engaging and gave us a concrete way to understand “an-other’s” perspective. I am sure the exercise will prove to be helpful to seminar participants, and inform students’ semester project on exploring a topic from different standpoints.
You begin your post by confessing your frustration with the ills of the world and with how change is so slow. I share your frustration, and also think that to some degree it is true that people are “victims of the instantaneous culture…so prevalent today.” I’ve been thinking about just such issues myself. With all the instant information now so accessible, how come so many people seem to have such shallow knowledge, understanding and/or appreciation of a larger context, of history—their own and that of others? Have we been turned into mere consumers and nothing much more? I’ve been bothered by this notion a lot lately, and was so struck to read your effort to come to terms with it.
Perhaps change is so slow because the focus tends to be so narrow—just on the limited case. In our class discussion of the murder trial, we (rightly so) stayed focused on the different aspects of that situation (I think the narrow focus is what frustrates Christina so much, and I empathize with her on that). There was mention of a larger context—the socio-economic-political conditions that shaped the south Bronx at that historical moment. Of course, those conditions were not produced by the people who lived there, but by larger forces out of the control of most people (including but not limited to the decline of manufacturing in US cities and thus massive unemployment). So what are we really talking about when we talk about “justice”? Are we just talking (narrowly) about what happens in one particular trial? Does the discussion of “justice” just begin and end there? Or SHOULD we take the discussion beyond the confines of the case and try to discuss how we could change social conditions so that people (“cops” and “criminals” alike) don’t find themselves on trial, imprisoned, dead. Or do you think that’s too tough to even think about, wrap our heads around? What if we brainstorm proposals that would/could address structural inequality? Last year, I threw out one idea (if “society” is culpable too, not just individuals, then for every conviction, the larger populace be taxed and the funds go directly to strengthening/building the most vulnerable communities). Are there other ideas?
Continued....
Continued from previous entry....
Finally, a few points of clarification. Joseph brings up the Ju/’hoansi. Why were there 26 murders to deal with at that/this point in history? Here’s a clue: prior to the 1950s the Ju/’hoansi were pretty much (but not entirely) left alone—a band society, as Joseph points out, engaged in hunting and gathering and relatively egalitarian. After the 1950s, however, colonists and farmers expanded more deeply and widely into their territory and the Ju/’hoansi were then “relocated” into a circumscribed area that became, literally, a rural slum where the men (previously hunters) got transformed into (low) wage laborers and recruited into the South African military (as scouts to look out for black African rebels) and the women (formerly gatherers) relegated to their shacks. (Note: the colonists and farmers could do this because they had the means to enforce it--the “law” of the land, the guns—the “swords” so to speak). Yes, in the years prior there were disputes. However, in the post 1950s period to the present, “crime” including domestic violence, escalated enormously. I am not sure Strayer addresses this. As I understand it, Strayer is an historian who writes textbooks. Anthropologists who worked among these folks and these issues include Marjorie Shostak and Richard Lee. There is also extensive documentary film made over these critical time periods by filmmaker John Marshall.
I wanted to respond to points made by Christina, Jessica and Chad, but I’ll stop here. This is a great discussion!
Justice is a nearly impossible word to define because its definition changes depending on the situation. As a result, the definition most likely does not satisfy the needs of those who define everything. I do believe that justice exists and the outcome of the book that you had us read is evidence of that. I appreciate your inclusion of Lady Justice, and like Professor Stein I did research on her roots. The first thing I thought when I saw the sword was a double edge sword, as Professor Stein points out. Additionally, I think a sword is an interesting symbolic representation of execution of law and power of the state.
Christina,
How can we devise a more representative definition of what is a crime or human rights violation? Do you think the comment about judges, police officers, and lawyers may be too general, that some people within those fields try to perform justly and do execute their actions in a just way?
Professor Waterston,
The book I cited is a history textbook that quotes an anthropologists study of that tribe. The reason I brought up the murders and the tribe was to point out how they administered justice. Thank you for the clarification about why the murders happened, but do you see anything that other “primitive” cultures teach us about justice that we lost through our transformation into a “civilized” society?
I have found myself, after countless discussions on how true, objective justice is works, simply placing my hopes into subjective justice. It sounds like it would cause more problems than it solves as there could be crazy, angry, or distressed people running around dishing out their forms of justice onto society, subjective justice is, however, as close to the most achievable system as I believe possible. Although it may be argued that we already have subjective justice in place, where those in power subject everyone else to their form of justice and all else must conform or face the consequences, such cases are not subjective justice at all and are rather injustices.
I do not envision true subjective justice in this manner. We all have grown up seeing Superman and Batman fight evildoers in an attempt to protect the innocent and bring the criminals to justice. Did any one notice the absurdly illegal things the superheroes did in order to facilitate such outcomes? They carried illegal weapons, violated traffic laws, frequently destroyed private property while crashing through buildings, and yet no one ever complained because they knew that at the end of the day they fought for justice (or because it was fiction). Not the legal view of justice, typically pointed out by those who had to try and bring in vigilante superheroes, but moral justice, and morality is subjective, formed by cultural norms, religious understandings, upbringings and personal experiences.
I feel that the world would be a better place if more people took a page out of the superhero book and fought for their understanding of what justice ought to be and battled injustices wherever they may crop up. Fight corrupt laws all the away to the supreme court, open a private drug rehabilitation clinic if the government isn't doing it right, donate to prisoner education programs, give up your seat to an elderly person on the train. If everyone fought against the injustices they perceived in their own lives and enforced their version of justice, the world would be a better place. So long as people don't commit violent vigilante justice.
Thank you Joseph for an interesting class! I also liked the book (could not stop reading it until I was done almost at 3 am).
As I mentioned during the class, I do not know what justice is. We can have multiple responses to this question depending on culture, religion and a personal background. Studying international affairs, I have similar to Jessica’s response regarding to how it can be achieved. We have to stress the importance of the ICC and persecute the heads of the states in this institution. Multiple international crimes were committed as a result of politics by the head of the states. Again, at the ICC, at the court of last resort, most of the criminals that are being prosecuted are from the developing countries. Why is it so? Do money and power define what justice is in this world?
This brings me to my next point. Before doing anything on the international level, we need to make some changes on the national level. I support Joseph’s argument that we cannot make any rapid changes. We need at least a decade for that. Therefore, we all are studying now in order to gain enough knowledge and change life of future generations for better. And I believe it is going to happen soon!
We were definitely missing Chad and Jamie during the class. I know what role Chad had to play. But what was Jamie’s part in this scenario?
Joseph,
--a thought-provoking post!
I think that justice can be defined to some extent. I agree that the meaning of justice is complex, but I do not agree that it is an obscure concept. However, for us to fully define what justice is in any given circumstance, we need to have standards that are outside of ourselves and our tendency to be biased and/or vengeful, and we also need to have standards and expectations that are somewhat malleable. The layers and perspectives involved in achieving justice make the concept complex, but not indefinable.
Have you ever felt that something or some action was just or unjust? Do you trust your senses when you feel that something or some action is just or unjust? Most of us have some sense of what is just and/or unjust, but I think we struggle the most with creating that neat, all-encompassing, one-size-fits-all “definition” that you spoke about. However, just because the lines are blurred between two sides does not mean that hope is gone in terms of the difference between these two sides, namely justice and injustice. If the concept of justice is to embody the capability of addressing a wide range of situations, should we really try to place clear lines around it? Wouldn’t a clear definition force us to overlook or improperly address some situations, creating more injustices?
Great class, Joseph, and great blog conversation, everyone.
I'm can't even remember if this is what I said in class, but I think "justice" is an idea and is both rich and complicated in the ways that all really good ideas can be. The principle of "fairness" (equity) is as close as I think we get to a tangible sense of justice. But even something as clear as being "fair" gets complicated. Because I know you all love my tiny tales of domestic life, here's part of what I was thinking about during your top-shelf discussion of justice in class:
My kids have the same debate on car trips and always appeal to me as the Judge. They have to split the back seat. One of them is a very large 12 year old, one is a smaller 9 year old. I tell them to split it down the middle because that is "fair" (here equity = equality). But is it? My eldest objects on the ground that space should be allotted proportionally -- he is bigger, he should get more. (The same would not apply, though, to pieces of pizza -- an argument he often makes -- because even though he is larger, appetites are more subjective than physical space.)
While you are free to weigh in on this perhaps universal dilemma of family life (except maybe not for NYers, since many of you do not have a "back seat"), I provide this example more to illustrate how as an idea, justice gets complicated (fairness is really completely situational). This is where the role of community courts gets closest to justice in our current system. But these courts are very resource-intensive. Which brings me back to the back seat: even if they seem fairer, they are getting more resources than other parts of the system in order to achieve that fairness.
Post a Comment