Justice

[Guest guest]

Om Fellow Travellers

 

Sister Usha's post (see upthread) talked about not allowing "the

past to rule the present. We cannot allow past experiences to

become more important than what is happening today. We have

no influence over the past. We cannot change anything about it,

neither for good nor for ill. But we can influence the present. We

have a choice in what we do today. We can love or hate." This

idea includes a topic that has been on my mind, namely, Justice.

 

There seems to be two views on justice:

 

1. Justice as retribution characterizes some behaviours as

crimes, violations of the state and its laws. After a contest

between the offender and the state, blame is established and

punishment sufficient to punish the offender and deter him/her

and others from committing more crimes is meted out.

 

This is an Old Testament viewpoint and also is reflected in the

Islamic justice system of Sharia. It is fear-based. Those who are

are fearful want heavy penalties attached to criminal behaviour.

The weak use retributive justice to make themselves feel strong

as they lobby for harsh penalties. Some see life as unfair and

themselves being in the position that they are in through no fault

of their own. As justice becomes politicized, there is a strong

vengence element in criminal sentencing. No body wins here

because everyone is acting as less than full human beings. The

victim often plays up the role of victim and uses that position to

exert power and revenge. But whether it is the victim, the

offender, the prosecutors, the judges, everywhere ego is out of

control, vision is narrow, the heart is hard and no one is in touch

with their own Divinity, never mind the Divinity of any one else.

 

In this model, people see themselves as victims of unfairness.

They do not see Karma at work in the events of their lives. They

do not take responsibility or ownership for their part in the

so-called crime. However, Swami Sivananda advises us,

"Reform yourself. Let the rest of the world reform itself." The

emphasis is on each of us to recognize our true Divine nature

and to let our actions, words and thoughts to reflect the Divinity in

us and in each one that we encounter.

 

2. The other view of justice in one of restoration. Here, crime is

viewed as a violation of people and their relationship. Justice is

seen as identifying needs and obligations so that things can be

made right, the social fabric repaired, through a process which

encourages dialogue and involves both victims and offenders.

 

If retributive justice is an Old Testament model, restorative

justice is from the New Testament. Jesus rejects the eye for an

eye model saying, "You have heard it said, 'an eye for an

eye,'...but I tell you, love your enemy."

 

Kahil Gibran in The Prophet says that crime arises when "your

spirit goes wandering upon the wind [and] you, alone and

unguarded, commit a wrong unto others and therefore unto

yourself. And that wrong committed must you wait a while at the

gate of the blessed."

 

Gibran continues, "Oftentimes have I heard you speak of one

who commits a wrong as though he were not one of you, but a

stranger unto you and an intruder upon your world. But I say that

even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the

highest which is in each of you, so the wicked and the weak

cannot fall lower than the lowest which is in you also...So the

wrong-doer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all"

 

Gibran says no one is blameless, "When one of you falls down

her falls for those behind him, a caution against the stumbling

stone, Ay, and he falls for those ahead of him, who though faster

and surer of foot, yest removed not the stumbling stone...The

murdered is not unaccountable for his own murder...And the

white-handed is not clean in the doings of the felon. Yea, the

guilty is oftentimes the victim of the injured, and still more often

the condemned is the burden bearer for the guiltless and the

unblamed. You cannot separate the just from the unjust and the

good from the wicked; for they stand together before the face of

the sun as the black thread and the white are woven together."

 

The restorative justice model is seen in Canada in the Aboriginal

sentencing cirlces. Sentencing circles allow victims, offenders,

community elders, other community members and court officials

to discuss together the consequences of a conflict and to

explore ways of resolving the aftermath.

 

Restitution for damages and reintegrating the wrongdoer into the

community are high priorities. Community members play an

active role in assisting the victim, the wrongdoer and the

community with the healing process.

 

I would very much like to hear the views on justice of the

members of this club and feel that examining our hearts on this

topic will be very helpful for all present and those with whom they

interact daily.

 

OM Aim Hrim Klim Chamundaye Viche Namaha

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

>Jesus rejects the eye for an eye model saying, "You

>have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye,'...but I tell

>you, love your enemy."

 

Do not forget Gandhi: "An eye for an eye leaves

everyone blind."

Western concepts of justice continue to be based

on the eye for an eye idea, the belief that vengeance

and justice are the same thing. The only difference

now is that centuries ago the victim's family removed

the offender's eye. Now the state does this instead.

There are two things that can be done with a

person who has committed a crime. First is to punish

the person in the hopes that the person will learn not

to do this sort of thing again. This presupposes that

reform is indeed possible. It is useless to try unless

you believe that reform can succeed. Yet, the Western

approach is to punish the person and still brand him a

criminal forever. The police hold records of people

who have committed crimes and assume that if a

particular individual has done wrong in the past, s/he

will probably do so again.

The other approach is to assume that people can

never be reformed and will always be a danger to

society. In this case, the society must protect itself

from harm, either by killing the criminals or locking

them up. I admit that some people are so violent that

they can never be reformed successfully, but it is sad

that this is true.

 

Sister Usha

 

=====

Sister Usha Devi

Founder, Divinely Female and worshipper of the Sacred Flame that shines inside

every woman

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

[Guest guest]

Om Sister Usha

 

You say that "there are two things that can be done with a

person who has committed a crime. First is to punish

the person in the hopes that the person will learn not

to do this sort of thing again. The other approach is to assume

that people can never be reformed and will always be a danger

to society. In this case, the society must protect itself from harm,

either by killing the criminals or locking them up."

 

Either the person is punished in some way so that he/she will

not commit a crime again or he/she is locked up forever or killed.

This sounds a little draconian and a little too glib.

 

The real question would appear to be how to repair the rent in

the social fabric making the perpetrator aware of the

inappropriateness of his/her actions, helping the victim to move

forward, and helping the community to thrive. Anything less is

just as bad as the crime from the point of view of keeping society

whole. We all know of career criminals, professional victims and

disfunctional societies. The question is how to remedy all three

and make everyone whole, innocent and divine. Your solutions

don't seem to work toward that objective.

 

Granted that there are some people who will remain impervious

to reform and enlightenment in this lifetime and perhaps they

should be jailed for life to protect themselves and others. But

under no circumstances should we kill them. Would you

personally like to take the responsibility of killing someone?

What do you think the karmic consequences of doing that would

be?

 

Perhaps the question should be that outside of karma does

justice exist. Or, are attempts at justice merely ways that one

group of people use to impose their will on another group? The

state wants to create a group of productive and compliant

workers and soldiers. The victim wants revenge. The old and

weak want the illusion of power. Perhaps justice is merely a nice

word for the exercise of power by a special interest group to

maintain or enhance their interests.

 

 

Om Namaha Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

My dearest friend Omprem,

Thank you very much for your comments. I aagree with what you

say. You are expanding the conversation to include subjects that I

had not addressed.

>The real question would appear to be how to repair the rent in

> the social fabric making the perpetrator aware of the

> inappropriateness of his/her actions, helping the victim to move

> forward, and helping the community to thrive.

 

Most certainly. I was discussing only the criminal, not the victim.

Certainly the needs of the victim are more important and rarely get

addressed in most countries. I was discussing only those situations

in which educating the criminal and teaching her/him the effects of

his bad karma on other people have been tried and failed.

>Your solutions

> don't seem to work toward that objective.

 

Yes, they do. It is important to stop such things from happening

again.

> Granted that there are some people who will remain impervious

> to reform and enlightenment in this lifetime and perhaps they

> should be jailed for life to protect themselves and others. But

> under no circumstances should we kill them.

 

I agree. But I was speaking in general. Every society must make this

decision and these are the only two choices for such extreme cases.

For example, Timothy McVeigh here in the USA a few years ago. He

killed 168 people and showed no regrets about this. He would have

killed more if he had had the opportunity. No nation can allow people

with these sorts of attitudes to walk around killing whomever they

want. You and I might have chosen to lock him up. The US government

killed him.

> Or, are attempts at justice merely ways that one

> group of people use to impose their will on another group?

 

Yes, certainly. In the ideal theoretical situation, you have the vast

majority of people living good and peaceful and enlightened lives and

only a small minority of people with hormonal imbalances causing the

problems. Certainly the majority has the right to protect itself from

harm. But in discussing real people there will always be

unenlightened people in power abusing their authority. The trick is

in designing a system in which power is dispersed among the various

groups so that no group can take unfair advantage over another.

 

Sister Usha

[Guest guest]

Om Usha

 

You said, "I was discussing only the criminal, not the victim.

Certainly the needs of the victim are more important and rarely

get addressed in most countries. I was discussing only those

situations in which educating the criminal and teaching her/him

the effects of his bad karma on other people have been tried

and failed."

 

Is it possible in a conversation on justice to discuss only the

criminal? I think not. Most criminals that I know are also victims.

(I should add that that criminals that I know are all clients of a

treatment center for addicts at which I volunteer to teach yoga

and meditation in an attempt to calm their minds and change

their consciousness. Most of these people have been jailed at

one time or another and all are the victims of something in their

past.) So, when you say that needs of the victim need to be

addressed, you must also include the "criminals" as victims as

well.

 

You seem to be leaning toward a retribution sense of justice

rather than a restorative sense of justice. In a restorative justice

system, the perpetrator would encouraged not only to see "the

effects of his/her bad karma on other people" as you put it but

also to bring him/her to an awareness of the effects of his/her

behaviour on himself and, most importantly, the triggers or mind

sets that produce such behaviour and how to change them.

Those triggers could easily be the result of the perpetrator being

subjected to intense social injustice or parental injustice.

 

As far as judicial killing is concerned, I think that it occurs for

wrong reasons such as saving money, dehumanizing the

perpetrator, sending a message, getting re-elected, etc.

Whenever the state kills a prisoner it has sunk to the same low

level of awareness as the prisoner was in when he/she

committed their criminal act.

 

Another compelling reason for not executing people is that the

justice system is flawed and innocent people are sentenced to

prison and to death frequently.

 

Om Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

> You seem to be leaning toward a retribution sense of justice

> rather than a restorative sense of justice.

 

I thought that I said just the opposite.

 

Sister Usha