Response

Justice

Many years ago, I had a reputation for being a notorious cookie thief. Every afternoon when I got back from elementary school, I would drag up the same wooden chair that sat closest to the cupboard in the kitchen, and reach on my tiptoes for the cookie jar. This foolproof plan backfired one day when my mom came home from work a few minutes early to find me cramming cookies into my mouth while standing on her beloved chair which I had in fact, ruined, due to my muddy shoes. I remember some words were exchanged, resulting in a certain punishment, no television for a week. Somewhere along the lines I uttered something about how this was not justice, and something about innocent until proven guilty, which turned my mother's frown into an amused grin. That scholastic kids article I had read earlier that day had really stuck apparently. Of course, she had caught me red handed, and there was plenty of evidence that proved me guilty, which I conveniently overlooked in all my groaning and pouting.

This got me thinking, justice really depends on point of view in many cases. In my view as a kid, stealing a few cookies did not warrant a sentence as drastic as a week of no television. However, looking back, my mother probably did it because I was doing something that could have resulted in an injury or big mess. Another example came along when my brother turned six years old and developed a certain addiction to orange juice. He literally drank it so often that the acid in the juice started to affect his voice, and we had to take him to the doctor. The sentence was no more orange juice, for a while at least. Of course, he thought this was a tremendously unfair sentence, and repeated the same words that I had once repeated years ago about justice. To him, the orange juice wasn't physically harming, so why did he have to stop drinking it? We knew, however, that the juice was affecting his voice, and continuing to drink it would affect it further.

At that time, it seemed to me that justice really seems to favor the elder. I could have argued that a week of no television was not an appropriate punishment for stealing a few cookies, or that no more orange juice at all went a bit overboard. But ultimately, I would have lost. Another example I found could be used was of a person accused of talking in a chatty classroom. They are not the only person talking, but they get the brunt of the punishment. However much they might argue, the teacher's point of view of justice is favored because he or she is the elder. I can think of this happening more than once during my tenure at Chapman elementary school.

So is justice always fair? I don't believe so, since it depends upon point of view and seems to play favorites a good portion of the time. I don't think it was fair when my friend in middle school got a Saturday school for accidentally popping a Frito's bag during lunch. Or when the grade had to get assigned seats at lunch because one table thought horsing around with food was a good idea. In a lot of situations, over-prosecution can occur, as with the cases of the Frito's bag or the assigned seats punishment. In addition, there isn't always much opportunity to defend yourself, with my friend barely having time to explain his mistake before he was escorted to the office. I always wondered if a perfect justice system was possible when I saw these plain everyday examples of unfairness.

In a perfect world, people think of the "bad guy" being apprehended and punished accordingly, however we know that is not how it always works. Oftentimes we accuse and punish the wrong person, while the real criminal gets off scot free. This is sometimes due to prejudices, or the "guilty until proven innocent" factor; in other words, it is point of view taking a role in justice when it should not. Real criminals can escape a proper punishment, or a punishment completely, because of lack of evidence also. I suppose what I'm trying to say is you really cannot have a perfect justice system. There will always be flaws somewhere in the framework. It is the act of mending those flaws that is greatly debated by people of status high and low. But it is important to remember that even if a perfect justice system were possible, justice is only as good as the laws which it is in place to protect.

Let's start with a rather simplistic example. Let's just say, that complimenting someone is illegal in a random society. Someone accused of complimenting someone is found guilty and sentenced to the appropriate punishment, and everything transpires smoothly: no favoritism, prejudices, etc. However, under that justice system, however smooth and perfect it is, a man was just punished for complimenting someone. Similarly, let's say there is a society in which murder is not a crime. A society where people get away with murder every day. A lot of people I know would say that getting away with murder is not justice, as would nearly any person today. But again, point of view plays a huge role in justice, as the people of that mock society most probably disagree with our point of view.

So I suppose the conclusion one can draw is that justice really does not have a set meaning. It is greatly influenced by point of view, it plays favorites, and it is impossible to have a 100% fair justice system. But however imperfect our system of justice is, it is put in place with good intentions, and continues to evolve. It is a concept that can be poked and prodded a hundred times around, and it will still remain one of humanities biggest discussions.