Justice Across Nations

The definitions of justice is universal to everyone, no matter what part of the world you live in. However, connotations attached to justice could be different depending on where you live and what type of mindset you have. Therefore, a person's personal beliefs about justice could be very different from someone else's. Religion and the law are two things that have a major affect on what people feel that justice is and how justice should be practiced. For example, a Catholic living in America has to decide for themselves whether they believe the death penalty is truly practicing justice or not. Although it is lawful, it is against the Catholic religion to promote killing human beings.
Conflicts within and between people who live in the same area and practice the same or different religions are typical. It goes to show then that people who live in very different areas and have different laws have even greater conflicts in their views of justice. It is easy for an American police officer to associate justice with the law but what about the Nazis that followed Hitler's order? Did they believe they were serving justice? It is hard to say. Connotations of justice can also change throughout time. When the United States were putting to trial the Nazis after years had passed after the end of World War II, they were trying to bring justice to the Nazis and to the Jewish people they had killed. There are two problems with this, though. The first one is that justice had meant something different to the Nazis when they were fighting for Hitler. They believed that they were doing what was right by following orders, which meant true justice to them. That was what they considered the law. When other country's had stepped in and put an end to the genocide, the Nazis stopped following the previous law and started following the current law: that it was unlawful to kill Jews. Another reason this is a problem is that the United States has very different laws than Germany does, even now after World War II. If justice is the administration of the law and law are different everywhere, how is it fair to the Nazis to be tried under the United States laws when they were just following their orders or laws. This is just one example of how drastically different justice can be, not only across nations but across time periods as well.

The Final Round

This past weekend, I have been honored to be a part of the first group to perform a play titled The Final Round, which was written by Kara Quillard and directed by Danae Jimenez. The play is about the experiences of college roommates who test each other's trust and friendship, especially between the characters of Harley and Bianca. After a major falling out between the two, the girls reunite for a short time many years later to discuss what had happened between them. Although one wants to reconnect and regain their friendship, the other one is resistant and unforgiving.

The Final Round is a relatable show to most college students and centers around the theme of forgiveness. Had Bianca and Harley forgiven each other for what had happened between them, the story would've taken a much different path and they probably would've ended up friends. Bianca, at the end, did try to make up for not trusting Harley earlier in the show which caused a fight between the two. However, Harley could not forgive Bianca for the way she, her best friend, treated her. For this reason, Bianca has a hard time forgiving herself, just like she did for the past couple years after she found out that she had lost Harley as a friend for something that Harley had never done. This can be interpreted in the very last sentences between the two girls in the show. Bianca asks Harley "Are you happy?" and she responds with "Yes. Are you?". From there, Bianca never responds and the show comes to a close. This could mean that she is not happy with her life, which could have been a result of the guilt that was weighing her down from what she had done to Harley. Bianca has not learned to forgive herself and feels that she needs to be forgiven by Harley to release the guilt she feels. Harley's response could mean that, despite losing her best friend, she has moved on with her life and forgiving Bianca will not change whether she is happy or not. She feels that she doesn't need Bianca as a friend to make her happy anymore.

Forgiveness plays a huge role the development of the characters Harley and Bianca and thus creates a theme of forgiveness. Although there isn't a solid moral to this story, there are multiple lessons that can be learned. The moral of this particular aspect of the story and that surrounds the theme of forgiveness is that forgiving yourself for messing up in life can be just as important, if not more important, than being forgiven for something that you have done to someone else. Sometimes, people will not forgive you for mistakes you have made but you can still move on and be happy if you forgive yourself for making that mistake.

Authority Figures

Authority figures are thought to be people who carry out justice. When you think of police officers, teachers, and parents you often think of safety and justice. There are some cases in which authority figures make their personification of justice seem contradictory. For example, Adolf Hitler was an authority figure who convinced his followers to exterminate all Jews. He was setting a type of law for people to follow, yet he was not being ethical. The same goes for parents who abuse their children, teachers who rape their students, and police officers who break the law. These people are all contradicting what they stand up for.

Take, for instance, the movie I Spit On Your Grave. This is a movie about a woman who goes to a small, remote town to get away from people so she could focus on her writing. During her visit there, she encounters a gang of men who assault her. In an attempt to escape from the men, she runs out into the woods, where she runs into some hunters. One hunter, she finds out, is a police officer. He takes her back to her cabin where the men assaulted her and the men, along with the police officer, end up raping her and leaving her out in the woods to die. She trusted the police officer to bring justice to her and to those men but the police officer proved to her to be untrustworthy. In an unfamiliar place, it is easy to trust people who wear uniforms of justice or people who bear titles of justice. However, there are times when this form of judgement proves to be wrong. Although cases like this are probably pretty rare, it is a sad encounter when justice of the law is not administered by those whose job it is to carry out the law, much less be ethical in their practices.

Justice in Schools

In an earlier blog post, I had mentioned how bystanders of any type of abuse who did not report the abuse of a defenseless person was being unjustifiable. At this time I would like to expand on that discussion and put it into a new context: justice in the schools.

It is not uncommon to hear of bullying in schools. Children of all ages pick on each other and usually the defenseless ones are the victims. When students witness other students bullying or being bullied, their first reaction usually isn't to stand up for the bullied student. Instead, their first reaction is to run as far away from the bully as possible or to even join in the bullying. But this seems odd. How could one, or even a group of students, witness bullying in action and join in the on the bully's side? One reason is because they are afraid of going against the bully, no matter how badly the feel for the one being bullied, and they don't want to be deemed "weird" by the other students for walking away from an issue like that, much less to report it and be called a "tattle-tale". In fact, this happens all the time in schools. Name calling is one form of bullying that is easily over looked by people in schools. If one person start calling another person a "freak" or a "loser",  a lot of times the bystander students will join in calling that same person a "freak" or "loser".

Name calling is a form of bullying that students usually get away with in school. Teachers don't normally catch the students who mutter under their breathe at a student the word "freak" and they don't see text messages going around calling someone "loser". But what happens when a teacher does witness this form of bullying and doesn't do anything about it? Normally, teachers will hear a bad name being tossed around and they yell at the students with a simple "That's enough" or "That's inappropriate" and continue on with their work. This is no more than a tiny slap on the hand. Students aren't afraid of being told something is wrong by their teachers. The only way to stop bulling fully is if true punishment follows after every bullying occurrence Since this may be close to impossible, teachers should do more than just tell a kid to stop. These students bullying other students are not being justifiable. But the adult teachers who witness these occurrences and do nothing about it are being beyond unjustifiable. It is teaching bullies that they can get away with any crime when facing an authority, bullied students to not have faith that their authority figures will protect them, and bystanders that it is okay to face unjustifiable situations like this and let it happen without bringing justice to the people involved.

"Same Love"

The new hip-hop song "Same Love", by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, is about how homosexuals fit into American society. They point out to listeners how unfairly homosexuals are treated by society as they show viewers of the music video the journey of one gay man trying to find his place in society. This song contains so many examples of unjust treatment of homosexuals.

One example of the way homosexuals are treated by society pointed out in the song is the use of derogatory names. "Faggot" is just one of these examples that Macklemore and Ryan Lewis sing about. They also sing about how people use terms like this publicly, such as on the internet. Using derogatory names is not ethically right or just. The people that use them are not being justifiable. There is no reason to call people such a harsh name and the people using them probably know that. Where is the justice in calling homosexuals "faggots"? There are so many people that use this term on the internet, which is easily recorded. Isn't it our job as Americans to make all people feel equal and bring justice to our fellow citizens? Getting people into trouble who victimize homosexuals on the internet would be relatively easy with proof from the internet. The problem, though, is this: people are too afraid to make a stand and fight for the justice of someone that is NOT themselves. This problem is also pointed out in "Same Love" in the lines "When everyone else is more comfortable remaining voiceless rather than fighting for humans that have had their rights stolen". If a person is witnessing unjustifiable acts, such as using derogatory names in order to hurt an individual, and that person does nothing to stand up for the victim, are they behaving in a justifiable manner? Are they being any better than the perpetrator themselves? Although it is not in our nature as human beings to go out of our way to help an individual in situations like this, it will continue being a problem if people don't stand up for each other. The justice system has no strict laws, if any laws, on protecting humans against vulgar and demoralizing language. But serving justice means so much more than doing what is lawfully right; it is doing things that are also ethically right. That being said, I think a bystander would be unjustifiable in letting actions such as this happen. This specific statement can be applied to a variety of situations, such as witnessing a hit-and-run car wreck, or watching someone being murdered, and never reporting what you saw or carrying out justice for the sometimes defenseless victim. Using derogatory names is simply a less extreme version of those incidents. America will probably never become welcoming of homosexuals until perpetrators of abuse like this are stood up against by everyone.

Revenge

A question was brought to my attention when discussing the graphic novel V for Vendetta, written by Alan Moore, which is about a man who was abused in a resettlement camp and is now seeking revenge against all of those who participated in abusing him. The question was this: when is revenge justifiable and when is it not justifiable? It was difficult to come up with a solid answer to this question because of how vague the question was. For the most part, it depends on the situation this question is applied to. In some cases, it might be justifiable to seek revenge and in other cases it might not be justifiable at all. It also depends on a person's perspective of each issue that this might apply to and the person's overall understanding of what is considered justifiable.

To prove that something is justifiable, one must be able to show that it is right or reasonable. In which cases is it right to seek revenge? It is common to think of revenge as going out to commit an act that will harm someone in someway that has harmed you or someone you know. For instance, if someone killed someone else's mother, the victim might seek revenge by killing the perpetrator's mother. Another example of a common revengeful act is if someone stole something from someone, the victim might steal something back or they might even try to do bodily harm to the person. Another way of looking at this question, though, is in terms of the justice system. When a victim of a crime presses charges against the perpetrator of a crime and they are punished for their actions, doesn't that count as revenge?

The problem with this question is that revenge comes in so many different forms. Sometimes, revenge is done at the same level at which the original crime was done. Other times, the revenge is a worse act than the original crime was done. In my opinion, in order to make revenge justifiable, it must be done on a reasonable level, meaning that it must be equivalent to whatever the first act done was.

Freedom Fighters vs Terrorist

A topic analyzed in a previous blog was the meaning of the word justice. This topic can be applied to a variety of situations but in almost every case is ambivalent. Depending on which point of view a person takes in a certain situation, they will argue in support for that definition of justice. In situations dealing with the law, justice can often divide people into two different categories: freedom fighters and terrorists. A freedom fighter is a person who takes part in a violent struggle to achieve a political goal, especially to overthrow their government. A terrorist, on the other hand, is a person who uses violent acts to frighten people as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Notice that the two definitions are very similar. That is because freedom fighters and terrorists are virtually the same. The only real difference is how a person feels about their actions, and they will name them according to how they feel.

I'd like to use the trilogy The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins, as a reference to the conflict of the definition of justice and how it leads to the names of freedom fighters and terrorists. The Hunger Games is set in the country of Panem that is divided into twelve districts. Every year, the capitol of Panem draws two children from every district and the government forces the children to fight to the death until one stands as victor, an event the government ironically calls the Games. As the Games carry on, it is being taped and showed to all of the districts in Panem, who mourn the loss of their children, and to all the people in the capitol, who treat it as a celebration. This event serves as a warning to the districts to obey the government and reinforces the authority of the capitol of Panem. This method generally works; the people of the districts are too scared to fight against the government, at least until one girl, Katniss Everdeen, rises as the face of rebellion to the government of Panem.

It is easy for readers to see Katniss Everdeen as a freedom fighter, as the story is written from her point of view, which makes readers better able to understands Katniss' perspectives. Because of the society we live in and our high regard for children, it is also hard for readers to imagine cruelty towards children, making it even easier to see Katniss as a freedom fighter. Most of the people living in the districts would also claim that Katniss is a freedom fighter because she is fighting on their side and for their benefit. The government and all of the citizens living in the capitol, though, would argue that Katniss is a terrorist. She is going against the laws established by the government, which by definition would suggest that she is not serving justice and, therefore, would make her a terrorist. One could say that Katniss was fighting for the ethical side of justice, not the lawful side. But what about the perspectives of the citizens of the capitol? If they had been raised to believe that forcing these people's children to kill each other wasn't really a bad thing and were never forced to put themselves in that situation, they would honestly believe that Katniss wasn't fighting for justice at all and that she was a terrorist.

Is there a final answer to the question of which title Katniss Everdeen holds in The Hunger Games? If there wasn't such a conflicting definition to the word justice, it is possible that there would be. However, it is too controversial to claim Katniss Everdeen as a freedom fighter or as a terrorist. By definition, she could be called both.