Aristotle and Justice, 6-29-2010

 Wishing I had more time for this topic. The guilty plea is 38 hours away and no idea how long after that for the sentencing hearing, and in the back of my head is the knowledge I cannot take my books to the federal prison. I have things to do before then.

Aristotle defines five types of justice: justice in the distribution, justice in rectification, justice in exchange, political justice, and justice by nature and law. These come from The Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, Chapters 3 - 7.

These virtues intrude into the law - civil and constitutional. Indiana cites justice in its Preamble to its constitution as one of the document's purposes. How often do we think about how the state constitution provides justice for us citizens?

I think criminal culpability is on point here. There are crimes of intent, crimes of recklessness, and the accidental crime. One may have an intent to do a dangerous act resulting in death, but unless one intended the death of a specific person, yet not commit murder. This is not, as I understand it, the Mosaic Law. 

My take is that justice equalizes the relationship between wrongdoer and victim. I find it very much like contract law in that regard. (No, I have no idea how it applies in my case. The wrong done was to no one in particular, it was the passing of morally unforgivable things.) 

Moving from Aristotle to Judaism, let us look at Proverbs 21, 3:

To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacriifice.

Similarly, Proverbs 21, 21:

He who pursues justice and kindness will find life and honor.

The concordance in the Bible I am using has no entries of justice in the New Testament. Christians must do unto others as they would have others do unto them. I cannot believe justice is not paramount within that duty.

How to teach justice in a classroom - use the Socratic method as well as lectures? I think American culture thinks of justice as revenge, as punitive measures. Our Indiana constitution makes reformation a principle of Indiana's penal laws. Attribute that idea to the Quaker influence in 1851. I am not sure if we have lived up to that provision. Much to overcome then in an educational setting.

I do wonder what a classroom of convicts would make of a discussion on justice. (Actually, I wonder what a class on ethics would do for a convict leaving prison.) Most here make no more pretense of their guilt than I do, but I have had only two discussions about sentencing. Both had crimes similar to mine, and both were a bit shocked and dismayed about their sentences. I have written enough here about my two views on my sentence - as due me for my sins, and also overkill. Ten years for a nonviolent crime bothered the two I spoke with. 

How do we apply tooth for a tooth to a non-violent crimes? Take my crime, the government responded to a moral outrage with a law and a punishment. It is not as apparent a moral issue as murder or theft. With murder, the state can take a life of a murderer for their crime. The thief returns the value of what was taken. Tooth for a tooth applies only where the victim is known as well as the harm being palpable.

When judging justice, do we not need to answer this question: does a law serve its stated purpose as serving the best interests of society?

sch

[The specific language of Indiana's Bill of rights is: Section 18. The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice. sch 1/31/2023.]