Values Series 1: Justice

 Welcome to this 4-part (minimum) series where I delve into the definitions and practical applications of my values list! 

My four top values in no particular order are: justice, peace, empathy, and people. How did I come to those four words in particular? I worked with my own coach! How do I feel about those words? Complicated as all hell! 

One thing I've learned is that words don't actually have the meaning assigned by the dictionary - they have the weight of all of our lived experiences behind them. You probably won't define these words as values the same way I will, and that's fine! More than that, that's wonderful! We might share words, but not definitions, or have the exact same values but call them wildly different things. Isn't the human experience beautifully varied?

Let's jump in to my first, probably most controversial (to me) word: justice.

Ah, the judicial system! Judging people's actions! An eye for an eye!

Absolutely not.

My definition of "justice" is as follows: the balance of the rights of people, and the balance of harm and reparation.

Let's unpack that.

I was introduced in high school to the concept of "relative rights," which was explained to us as "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." A fairly direct explanation, although it does lack the nuance of the impact of someone swinging their fist at your face repeatedly, or whining that their nose is broken every time your hand twitches in their direction. 

This definition, of course, hinges on agreement about what the rights of people actually are. Let's start with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and I can wait until a later post to drop all my really controversial modern political opinions.

The first half of the definition is the straightforward half. It's relative rights in a nutshell. People have a right to do what they will, as long as those actions don't infringe upon the rights of other people to do what they will. I don't have a right to murder people, because that would infringe upon the rights of those people to live.

"But self-defense!" you might say. "What about someone who's imminently going to deprive you of life?"

I believe that there would be a number of steps I would take to incapacitate, escape, or otherwise thwart such an attempt before resorting to murder. This is where "balance" becomes relevant - someone who is actively and maliciously attempting to end someone's life may have less of a right to life than someone who is merely trying to survive. I say "may" because we're dealing in hypotheticals much more simplified than real life ever gets. If I ever find myself in a fight to the death, I may revisit this essay.

The second half of the definition is the interesting half. What exactly is reparation? To me, it is fixing or mitigating the caused harm and taking steps to prevent further similar harm from occurring.

Now we arrive at the problem of the modern judicial system. Justice, according to this system, is someone spending a certain amount of time deprived of liberty for causing harm to a person or institution. 

Where's the reparation?

You could argue that confining the person prevents the harm, but unless you intend to imprison all minor criminals for life, it's a temporary band-aid. And any research into recidivism rates after prison will prove that it actually heightens the problem, rather than reforming individuals.

On a broad systemic level, we therefore do not have justice. We have state-sanctioned revenge.

I believe that the opportunity for justice occurs daily between all people, whether recognized or not.

We've all heard some variation on the basic formula for a good apology - say sorry, acknowledge and address impact, state intention for changed behavior in future. To me, that is direct person-to-person justice in a nutshell. Harm has been done, and reparation follows. 

A common interpersonal apology is brief and easily navigated. Someone steps on my foot, it hurts briefly, but my emotional state is assuaged by a quick "I'm so sorry!" that assures me it was not malicious. I would estimate that most instances of direct interpersonal harm fall into this category - accidental misstep into unintentional harm. These instances might be painful for both parties to navigate, but given good-faith efforts, relationships can be repaired and come out stronger than ever.

Dealing with bad actors, those who are intentional in doing harm, requires us to take a different approach. I've already mentioned the justice system, but what about people whose degree of harm falls under the law? Emotionally abusive relationships, romantic or otherwise, can leave victims with a valid feeling of anger and the sense that they can never receive appropriate reparations.

I propose that, in the case where reparations from the other party are impossible to receive for any reason, we can give reparations to ourselves. We can identify those places we were harmed and what actions might be healing to those wounds, and we can make the active choice to pursue our own well-being. This work may initially feel less satisfying than having the antagonizing party grovel before us, but it will lead to a greater sense of self-efficacy and self-respect in the long run. 

I believe that the pursuit of justice, as I have defined it, will uncover a host of minor, individual ways that we can do better by our fellow humans on a daily basis. I also believe that to pursue it on a major scale would require an overhaul of our entire system, on a global scale, and a reimagining of the true inherent rights of all humans.

That's work I want to do.

Stay tuned for the next installment, "Peace."

Anneke out <3