Monday, June 30, 2014

The Paradox of Justice



Our trust that justice will be served grounds us and gives us peace of mind. We’re gratified when justice reigns, and we’re in danger of disillusionment when it isn’t served.

But we can’t assume that justice prevails. An unfortunate person may suffer dire consequences for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong country with the wrong color of skin and with the wrong religious beliefs. We are very lucky if we don’t endure an injustice, from minor to major, at some point in our lives.

Injustice refers to unfairness or undeserved outcomes and applies to an event, a situation or a status quo, like the inequality of women before they gained the right to vote.

The notion of injustice is universal, although the circumstances considered unjust can vary from culture to culture. We live in a time in history when injustices are more likely to be made public, and in a country where freedom of speech and of the press are expected, and for the most part practiced and protected.

As a result of the rise of social media, we’re better informed and aware of injustices around the world.  Perhaps this explains (at least in part) why a recent poll found that only 23 percent of Americans have confidence in the criminal justice system (The New York Times, Opinion page, print copy, June 23, 2014).

A person who has experienced an injustice needs time to heal. Depending on the severity of the abuse, the healing process can last from days to years but is definitely helped if and when justice is served. If the injustice isn’t satisfactorily resolved, the healing process may never be complete.

Psychotherapy is often necessary to cope with the feelings of betrayal and help sort out the details. Individuals often ask themselves if they have contributed in any way to the circumstances.

Mr. W. was sexually molested by a priest when he a child. The tragedy was exacerbated by the fact that he never told anyone and the abuser died in a time before sexual abuses in the Catholic Church came to light.

Mr. W. didn’t want to make his situation public, and he spent years trying to cope with the psychological damage and his subsequent addiction to drugs.  

Human selfishness is often at the root of the injustice. Clearly the priest who took advantage of  Mr. W.’s innocence didn’t think about the damage he inflicted.

Flawed human decision-making also contributes. Decades of academic research suggest that we place too much confidence in human judgment. For example, the decisions of judges sitting on review boards depend on the time lapsed between their last food break. Daniel Kahneman in his 2011 book, Thinking Fast and Slow cites the research that observed that judges are less likely to reach decisions favorable to plaintiffs when more time has passed between meals.

To lighten the spirit of this ponderous topic, I offer an example from the world of the canine.  A while ago, I summoned my Schipperke dog, Woolf, with a treat. When he arrived at my feet (for some perversity of mood), I didn’t deliver the morsel. Woolf reacted with a snap, a rare display of disapproval. But I realized his response was indeed “justified.” Without intending to, I had performed an experiment on a dog and learned that he too expects justice to prevail--in the form of a treat, promised and earned.

Conclusion: Although we aspire to the ideal of justice and it behooves us to believe that justice will be served, we do better to recognize human selfishness and our fallibility of judgment. Paradoxically, we need to trust and maintain awareness (of the pitfalls of our human condition).

Dear Reader, I welcome your response. Jsimon145@gmail.com


No comments:

Post a Comment

Printfriendly