Justice is Compassion

I don’t know where the age old concept of justice as “rewarding the right and punishing the wrong” came from, and I don’t know how the “rewarding the good” part seems to have been forgotten about altogether, leaving us with “punish the wrong” as the general mentality of our justice system and as many people’s concept of justice.

I have a different one: Justice is compassion. Humans, as well as all other forms of life, are, by their nature of being living things, worthy of respect and love and compassion. No matter what they’ve done. It doesn’t matter how heinous the crime, how vile the intent, how hurtful the result. All are equally deserving of love. All.

The idea that justice has been served when violence has been returned to its perpetrator (for example, though the death penalty, or even through a dehumanizing prison system), is so pervasive and yet counterintuitive when compared with what so many parents attempt to teach their children: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Parents who hit their children back are considered abusive, but social systems based on similar abuses persist.

Where, exactly, did we get the idea that when someone has caused harm, they are allowed to be harmed back? How does perpetuating the problem do anything at all to solve it? You cannot heal a hurt by causing a second hurt. That’s not how it works.

Only when we leave the cycle of violence behind altogether, in all aspects of life, will we be able to call ourselves “just.” I don’t profess to be perfect at this, and neither do I claim to be free of anger when someone hurts me. But I know that a hurt in response to a hurt solves nothing.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Compassion, Love, Violence. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Justice is Compassion

  1. Pingback: On Loving Enemies | Accelerate Compassion

  2. John Dunham says:

    That is because our “Justice” system is not based on Justice per se. In reality, it is a Vengeance System–whereby equal or greater harm is meted out to those who do harm, not to do justice (which might be them making up for their crimes in whatever way they are able, which in turn might also help to heal them) but to basically bully those who break the laws of the many into making choices that are not inconvenient. You can really see how justice is not the aim when you look at sentencing–the severity of the sentence clearly parallels not the level of harm done to the victim, but the level of inconvenience caused to the powerful.

  3. Steve Dunham says:

    The classic definition of the virtue of justice is to obtain the return of someone’s rights: to act to help someone who has been oppressed. Standing up for yourself may benefit others (as in the case of Rosa Parks, for example), but the virtue is about doing good on behalf of someone else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s