Justice in Christian preaching emphasizes fairness, impartiality, and adherence to God's righteous standards, serving as the foundation of a moral and orderly society (Isaiah 1:17). Illustrations often draw on images of kings, laws, and impartial judgments to highlight justice as both a divine attribute and a societal necessity, demanding honest and equitable treatment for all (Micah 6:8).
Justice demands fairness, not selfish retention of what rightfully belongs to others.
A rich man made his will, leaving all he had to a company of his fellow-citizens to dispose of, but reserving to his right heir "such a portion as pleaseth them." The heir having sued the company for his share of the property, the judge inquired, whether they wished to carry out the will of the testator, and, if so, what provision they proposed making for the heir. "He shall have a tenth part," said they; "and we will retain for ourselves the other nine." "Take, then," said the judge, "the tenth part to yourselves, and leave the rest to the heir; for, by the will, he is to have what part pleaseth you."
A king learns to listen attentively to justice appeals after a poor woman's bold rebuke.
A poor old woman had often in vain attempted to obtain the ear of Philip of Macedon to certain wrongs of which she complained. The king at last abruptly told her he was not at leisure to hear her. "No!" exclaimed she. "Then you are not at leisure to be king." Philip was confounded. He pondered a moment in silence over her words, then desired her to proceed with her case; and, ever after, made it a rule to listen attentively to the applications of all who addressed him. Percy.
Justice is the vital soul of civil society, essential for life and happiness.
That which the air is in the elementary world, the same in the celestial, the soul in the intelligible justice is in the civil. It is the air which all afflicted desire to breathe; the sun which dispelth all clouds; the soul which giveth life to all things. The unhappiness is, it is more found on the paper of writers than in the manners of their living. To be just is to be all that which an honest man may be: since justice is to give every one what appertaineth to him.
— N. Caussin
A king insists on justice in small matters to set an example for his people.
Nouschirvan, King of Persia, hunting, one day, became desirous of eating some of the venison in the field. Some of his attendants went to a neighboring village, and took away a quantity of salt to season it; but the king, suspecting how they had acted, ordered that they should immediately go and pay for it. Then turning to his attendants, he said, "This is a small matter in itself, but a great one as it regards me; for a king ought ever to be just, because he is an example to his subjects; and, if he swerves in trifles, they will become dissolute. If I cannot make all my people just in the smallest things, I can at least show them that it is possible to be so."
A king executes impartial justice even against his own son to uphold the law.
A striking instance of the stern and impartial administration of justice is afforded in the history of one of the Kings of Acalluacan, a province of the Mexican empire. There was a law which forbade, on pain of death, the speaking of indecent words in the royal palace. One of the sons of this king, for whom he had felt a more particular attachment than for any of the rest, on account of his disposition and his virtues, violated this law. The king was informed of it; and, understanding that the word had been spoken by the prince in the presence of his tutors, he sent to examine them. They, being afraid of experiencing some punishment if they concealed the truth, confessed it openly, but, at the same time, endeavored to exculpate the prince by saying that he did not know the person to whom he spoke, nor that the language was improper. Notwithstanding all this, he ordered the young prince to be arrested immediately; and the very same day pronounced sentence of death upon him. The whole court were astonished at the rigor of the king, and interfered with their prayers and tears in behalf of the prince; but no remonstrances could move the inflexible mind of the king. "My son," said he, "has violated the law. If I pardon him, it will be said the laws are not binding on every one. I will let my subjects know that no one will be pardoned a transgression, as I do not even pardon the son whom I dearly love." The punishment was accordingly executed. The king shut himself up for forty days in a hall, without letting himself be seen by any one. He vented his grief in secret; and, to conceal from his sight every thing that might recall his sorrow, he caused the door of his son's apartment to be closed up by a wall. He showed his subjects, that although he was incapable of repressing the feelings of a father, and scaling up the fountains of his grief, yet he would never permit them to overcome his zeal for the laws, and the most rigid impartiality in their execution.
— Dr. J. Todd
Justice is the foundation of civilized society, social security, and human progress.
Justice is the greatest interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together. Wherever her temple stands, and so long as it is duly honored, there is a foundation for social security, and general happiness, and the improvement and progress of our race. And whoever labors on this edifice with usefulness and distinction, whoever clears its foundations, strengthens its pillars, adorns its entablatures, or contributes to raise its august dome still higher in the skies, connects himself in name and fame and character with that which is and must be as durable as the frame of human society.
Christian belief affirms justice as a lasting virtue beyond temporal considerations.
JUSTICE, Opiatons of Carneades, whom Cicero so much dreaded, maintained that there was no such thing as justice; and he supported his theory by such sophisms as these: That the condition of men is such, that, if they had a mind to be just, they must act imprudently; and, if they have a mind to act prudently, they must be unjust; and that it follows there can be no such thing as justice, because a virtue inseparable from a folly cannot be just. Lactantius is correct, when he affirms that the heathens could not answer this sophism, and that Cicero dared not undertake it. The error was this, — the restricting the value of justice to temporal things; for to those who disbelieve a future state, or even have doubts about it, "honesty is not always the best policy;" and it is reserved for Christians, who take into their consideration the whole existence of man, to argue clearly and consequentially on the sterling value of justice. It is well known that Hume himself was never so much puzzled as when peremptorily asked by a lady of Bath to declare upon his honor, as a gentleman, whether he would choose his own confidential domestics from such as held his own principles, or from those who conscientiously believed the eternal truths of Revelation. He frankly decided in favor of the latter.
Socrates refuses to commit an unjust act, valuing justice over personal safety.
While Athens was governed by the thirty tyrants, Socrates, the philosopher, was summoned to the senate-house, and ordered to go with some other persons, whom they named, to seize one Leon, a man of rank and fortune, whom they determined to put out of the way, that they might enjoy his estate. This commission Socrates positively refused. "I will not willingly," said he, "assist in an unjust act." Chericles sharply replied, "Dost thou think, Socrates, to talk in this high tone, and not to suffer?" — "Far from it," replied he: "I expect to suffer a thousand ills, but none so great as to do unjustly."
True justice requires personal responsibility, not leaving it to successors or others.
It happened on a time, as Trajan was hastening to battle at the head of his legions, that a poor widow flung herself in his path, and cried aloud for justice, and the emperor staid to listen to her; and she demanded vengeance for the innocent blood of her son, killed by the son of the emperor. Trajan promised to do her justice when he returned from his expedition. "But, sire," answered the widow, "should you be killed in battle, who then will do me justice?" — "My successor," replied Trajan. And she said, "What will it signify to you, great emperor, that any other than yourself should do me justice? Is it not better that you should do this good action yourself, than leave another to do it?" And Trajan alighted; and, having examined into the affair, he gave up his own son to her in place of him she had lost, and bestowed on her, likewise, a rich dowry. Now it came to pass, that, as Gregory was one day meditating in his daily walk, this action of the Emperor Trajan came into his mind, and he wept bitterly to think that a man so just should be condemned as a heathen to eternal punishment; and, entering into a church, he prayed most fervently that the soul of the good emperor might be released from torment. And a voice said to him, "I have granted thy prayer, and I have spared the soul of Trajan for thy sake; but, because thou hast supplicated for one whom the justice of God had already condemned, thou shalt choose one of two things, — either thou shalt endure for two days the fires of purgatory, or thou shalt be sick and infirm for the remainder of thy life." Gregory chose the latter; which sufficiently accounts for the grievous pains and infirmities to which this great man was subjected even to the day of his death. Legenda Aurea.
Justice must be impartial, unbiased, and uninfluenced by personal relationships or fear.
These instructions were admirably embodied in the figure which the old Egyptians gave to Justice. She was symbolized by a human form without hands, to indicate that judges should accept no bribes; and not without hands only, but sightless, to indicate that the judge is to know neither father nor mother, nor wife nor child, nor brother nor sister, nor slave nor sovereign, nor friend nor foe, when he occupies the seat of justice. He is not to be the client, but only to hear the cause, and, uninfluenced by fear or favor, to decide the case upon its merits.
— Dr. Guthrie
True justice requires honesty, even when it harms oneself.
Two neighboring farmers had a dispute respecting the right to a certain meadow, and they could not compromise the matter. An action at law was accordingly brought to determine it. On the day appointed for the trial, one of the farmers, having dressed himself in his Sunday clothes, called upon his opponent to accompany him to the Judge. Finding his neighbor at work on his ground, he said to him, "Is it possible you can have forgotten that our cause is to be decided to-day?" "No," said the other, "I have not forgotten it; but I cannot well spare time to go. I knew you would be there, and I am sure you are an honest man, and will say nothing but the truth. You will state the case fairly, and justice will be done." And so it proved; for the farmer who went to the Judge, stated his neighbor's claims so clearly, that the cause was decided against himself; and he returned to inform his opponent that he had gained the property.
Even kings are subject to just laws and must respect justice.
Near Potsdam (Prussia), in the reign of Frederick King of Prussia, was a mill which interfered with a view from the windows of Sans Souci. Annoyed by this inconvenience to his favorite residence, the king sent to inquire the price for which the mill would be sold by the owner. "For no price," was the reply of the sturdy Prussian; and, in a moment of anger, Frederick gave orders that the mill should be pulled down. "The king may do this," said the miller, quietly folding his arms, "but there are laws in Prussia;" and forthwith he commenced proceedings against the monarch, the result of which was, the court sentenced Frederick to rebuild the mill, and to pay besides a large sum of money as compensation for the injury which he had done. The king was mortified, but had the magnanimity to say, addressing himself to his courtiers, "I am glad to find that just laws and upright judges exist in my kingdom." A few years ago, the head of the honest miller's family, who had in due course of time succeeded to the hereditary possession of his little estate, finding himself, after a long struggle with losses occasioned by the war, which brought ruin into many a house besides his own, involved in pecuniary difficulties that had become insurmountable, wrote to the then king of Prussia, reminding him of the refusal experienced by Frederick the Great at the hands of his ancestor, and stating that, if his majesty now entertained a similar desire to obtain possession of the property, it would be very agreeable to him, in his present embarrassed circumstances, to sell the mill. The king immediately wrote, with his own hand, the following reply :—
"My dear neighbor;—I cannot allow you to sell the mill; it must remain in your possession as long as one member of your family exists; for it belongs to the history of Prussia. I lament, however, to hear that you are in circumstances of embarrassment; and therefore send you 6000 dollars (about £1000 sterling) to arrange your affairs, in the hope that this sum will be sufficient for the purpose. Consider me always your affectionate neighbor,
"FREDERICK WILLIAM."
Appealing to God’s justice can overturn human error and unfairness.
It is related of Philip, King of the Macedonians, that while one was pleading before him, he dropped asleep, and, waking on a sudden, passed sentence against the righteous cause: upon this the injured person cried out, "I appeal." The king, with indignation, asked, "To whom?" He replied, "From yourself sleeping to yourself waking;" and had the judgment reversed that was against him.
Justice must be impartial, even toward those of royal blood.
When a prince of the blood royal of France disgraced himself, by committing robbery and murder in the streets of Paris, Louis XV would not grant a pardon, though eagerly solicited to do so by a deputation from the Parliament of Paris, who tried him, and suspended their sentence until the royal pleasure should be known. "My lords and counsellors," said the king, "return to your chambers of justice, and promulgate your decree." "Consider," said the first president, "that the unhappy prince has your majesty's blood in his veins." "Yes," said the king, "but the blood has become impure, and justice demands that it should be let out; nor would I spare my own son for a crime, for which I should be bound to condemn the meanest of my subjects." The prince was executed on the scaffold in the court of the grand Chatelet, on the 12th of August, 1729.
True respect for law includes accepting consequences, even by princes.
One of the favorites of King Henry V, when Prince of Wales, having been indicted for some misdemeanor, was condemned, notwithstanding all the interest he could make in his favor; and the Prince was so incensed at the issue of the trial that he struck the judge on the bench. This magistrate, whose name was Sir William Gascoign, acted with a spirit becoming his character. He instantly ordered the Prince to be committed to prison; and young Henry, sensible by this time of the insult he had offered to the laws of his country, suffered himself to be quietly conducted to jail by the officers of justice. The king, Henry IV, who was an excellent judge of mankind, was no sooner informed of this transaction, than he cried out in a transport of joy, "Happy is the king who has a magistrate possessed of courage to execute the laws; and still more happy in having a son who will submit to such chastisement."
# 240. JUSTIFICATION
Justice demands punishment even against loved ones who betray trust.
How rigid was the justice of Brutus, the Elder, who, in spite of all the love of a father, passed sentence of death upon his own sons, for conspiring against the liberty of their country! While the youths stand trembling and weeping before him, hoping that their tears would be the most powerful defence with a father; while the senate whisper for the moderation of the punishment, and that they might escape with banishment; while the multitude trembles and expects the decision with horror,—the inexorable Brutus rises, in all the stern majesty of justice, and, turning to the executioners, says to them, “To you I deliver them.” In this sentence he persisted, notwithstanding the weeping intercession of the multitude, and the cries of the young men, calling upon their father by the most endearing names. They were seized, stripped, bound, and their heads then cut off; Brutus looking on the bloody spectacle with unaltered countenance.
Denial alone does not prove innocence; accusations require evidence.
See WORK VERSUS WORKER.
ACCUSATION INSUFFICIENT
When Numerius, governor of the Narbonnoise Gaul, was impeached for plunder of his province, he defended himself, and denied the charge and explained it away so skilfully that he baffled his accusers. A famous lawyer thereupon exclaimed, “Cæsar, who will ever be found guilty, if it is sufficient for a man to deny the charge?” To which Julian retorted, “But who will appear innocent, if a bare accusation is sufficient?” (Text.)
Judging by appearance alone can be misleading in determining guilt or innocence.
The Late Charles P. Thompson, of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, at one time in his practise had a client named Michael Dougherty, who had been arrested for the illegal sale of liquor, but the police had no evidence except one pint of whisky, which they found in his alleged kitchen barroom. The Boston _Herald_, in relating this story, says:
In the superior court this evidence was produced and a somewhat vivid claim made of _prima facie_ evidence of guilt by the prosecuting attorney. During all this time Mr. Thompson was silent. When his turn came for the defense he arose and said:
“Michael Dougherty, take the stand.”
And Mike, with big red nose, unshaven face, bleared eyes, and a general appearance of dilapidation and dejection, took the stand.
“Michael Dougherty, look upon the jury. Gentlemen of the jury, look on Michael Dougherty,” said Mr. Thompson. All complied. Mr. Thompson himself silently and steadily gazing at Mike for a moment, slowly and with solemnity turned to the jury and said: “Gentlemen of the jury, do you mean to say to this court and to me that you honestly and truly believe that Michael Dougherty, if he had a pint of whisky, would sell it?”
It is needless to say Mike was acquitted. (Text.)
A murdered man's spirit is believed to cry out for justice until avenged.
The Arabs have a belief that over the grave of a murdered man his spirit hovers in the form of a bird that cries, “Give me drink! Give me drink!” and only ceases to cry when the murder is avenged by the death of the murderer. (Text.)
Bloodshed demands vengeance, symbolized by covering blood to appease the avenger.
A Bedouin horseman riding along a desert track, seeing the sign of blood on the side of the road, will instantly dismount and cover it with earth “to lay the _mâred_” (the avenger of blood). The idea is that the spirit of him who died by an act of violence, the victim of man’s hate, the _mâred_, calls for vengeance on him who has taken the life of his fellow man.--“The Witness of the Wilderness.”
Circumstantial evidence can lead to wrongful judgment and injustice.
The danger of circumstantial evidence is illustrated by the French trial of a maidservant for robbery of some forks from a citizen of Paris. At the trial the circumstances were so strong against her that she was found guilty, and was executed. Six months afterward the forks were found under an old roof, behind a heap of tiles, where a magpie used to go. When it was discovered that the innocent girl had been unjustly condemned, an annual mass was founded at St. John-en-Grese for the repose of her soul.--CROAKE JAMES, “Curiosities of Law and Lawyers.”
Birds hold formal courts to judge and punish offenders, showing natural justice.
Dr. Edmondson describes regular assemblies of crows of the hooded species--“crow courts,” they are called--which are held at certain intervals in the Shetland Isles. A particular hill or field suitable for the business is selected, but nothing is done till all are ready, and consequently the earlier comers have sometimes to wait for a day or two till the others arrive. When all have come, the court opens in a formal manner and the presumed criminals are arraigned at the bar. A general croaking and clamor are raised by the assembly and judgment is delivered, apparently, by the whole court. As soon as the execution is over, the court breaks up and all its members disperse quietly. An Alpine tourist relates that, during an excursion in the Swiss mountains, he accidently came upon a small secluded glen, which was surrounded by trees, and became the unexpected witness of a singular spectacle. About sixty or seventy ravens were ranged in a ring around one of their fellows, evidently reputed a culprit, and with much clatter of tongues and wings, were engaged in discussing his alleged delinquencies. At intervals they paused in their debate in order to permit the accused to reply, which he did most vociferously and with intense energy, but all his expostulations were speedily drowned in a deafening chorus of dissent. Eventually the court appears to have arrived at the unanimous conclusion that the felon had utterly failed to exculpate himself, and they suddenly flew at him from all sides and tore him to pieces, with their powerful beaks. Having executed their sentence, they speedily disappeared.--_The Popular Science Monthly._
Severe crime and lawlessness persisted despite harsh punishments in historic London.
See EVIDENCE, PROVIDENTIAL.
CRIME IN FORMER DAYS
Every week a host of young lads were hanged for theft, and the spectacle of a criminal riding through the streets to Tyburn, and getting as drunk as he conveniently could upon the way, was too common to attract attention. London was called the City of the Gallows, for from whatever joint you entered it, by land or water, you passed between a lane of gibbets, where the corpses of felons hung, rotting and bleaching in the light. Nor was crime supprest by this stringency of the law. Highwaymen rode into town at nightfall, coolly tying their horses to the palings of Hyde Park, and executed their plans of robbery in the very presence of the impotent protectors of the public peace. London was infested by gangs of youths, whose nightly pastime was to bludgeon inoffensive watchmen, and to gouge out the eyes of chance travelers. Dean Swift dared not go out after dark, and Johnson wrote:
Prepare for death, if here at night you roam,
And sign your will before you sup from home.
Ludgate Hill swarmed with mock parsons, and thousands of spurious marriages were celebrated every year.--W. J. DAWSON, “The Makers of English Prose.”
Tracing counterfeit bills reveals complex chains leading to the original criminal.
The tracing of counterfeit bills back to the persons responsible for their issue is a curious and exciting employment. The experts assigned by the Government to this work are among the most skilful members of the Secret Service.
A bank clerk in Cleveland had detected a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill in the deposit of a small retail grocer. An expert was sent for and undertook the case.
He found that the grocer had received the bill from a shoe-dealer, who had it from a dentist, who had it from somebody else, and so on, until the Secret Service man finally traced the bad note to an invalid woman who had used it to pay her physician. When questioned, this woman said that the money had been sent her by her brother, who lived in New Orleans.
The sleuth looked up the brother’s antecedents, and soon became convinced that he was the man wanted. The brother, however, soon proved to the satisfaction of the Secret Service man that his suspicions were unfounded. Indeed, it appeared that the money had been received by the New Orleans man in part payment of rent of a house he owned in Pittsburg. While the sleuth was a bit discouraged, he couldn’t give over the case when he had gone so far, so he took the next train for Pittsburg.
The tenant of the house in Pittsburg proved to be a traveling oculist, who spent most of his time in the Middle West. The Secret Service man had the good luck, however, to catch him just as he had returned from a trip; and the man at once recognized the bad bill as one that had been given him by a patient in Cleveland, the very point whence the sleuth had started.
The patient was a boss carpenter. The Secret Service man got his address from the oculist and went right after the new clue. At this point he had a premonition that something was going to happen, and he wasn’t disappointed.
The carpenter, an honest old fellow, said that he had received the bill from a certain Parker. The said Parker was the small grocer in whose bank deposit the counterfeit had turned up. The expert flew to the grocer’s as quickly as a cab would take him, and found it closed. He had left town.
Afterward it was shown beyond question that the grocer was the agent of an organized band of counterfeiters. His shop was a mere blind. That the bill which he gave the carpenter should get back into his own funds after traveling all over the continent was one of those miracles of chance for which there is no explanation.--_Harper’s Weekly._
Honesty may be recognized even when punishment is justly administered.
A farm servant named Auguste Bichet was condemned at Nancy to six days’ imprisonment for stealing a franc, but was complimented by the court for his honesty. Bichet stole a franc from a shop counter and confest to the theft. But about the same time he found a purse containing $125 and at once restored it to its owner, refusing to accept any reward. The court exprest its astonishment and admiration at the man’s honesty, but as he had been convicted before, the president said they were obliged to send him to prison. They did so with great regret and complimented him on his probity.--San Francisco _Bulletin_.
Society often labels the same act differently based on scale and status, revealing injustice.
Taking $1,000,000 is called genius.
„ 100,000 „ „ shortage.
„ 50,000 „ „ litigation.
„ 25,000 „ „ insolvency.
„ 10,000 „ „ irregularity.
„ 5,000 „ „ defalcation.
„ 1,000 „ „ corruption.
„ 500 „ „ embezzlement.
„ 100 „ „ dishonesty.
„ 50 „ „ stealing.
„ 25 „ „ total depravity.
„ one ham „ „ war on society.
--Washington _Post_.
Ambiguous laws can enable great evils like slavery despite noble intentions.
The last great martyr to the double meaning in our Constitution, mentioned below, was Lincoln. It was a clause that protected the most gigantic evil of history:
An American historian says of the Constitution of the United States: “Our Constitution in its spirit and legitimate utterance is doubtless the noblest document which ever emanated from the mind of man. It contains not one word hostile to liberty.... But yet ingloriously, guiltily, under sore temptation, we consented to use one phrase susceptible of a double meaning, ‘held to service or labor.’ (Article IV Section 2.) These honest words at the North mean a hired man, an apprentice. At the South they mean a slave, feudal bondage. So small, apparently so insignificant, were those seeds sown in our Constitution which have resulted in such a harvest of misery.”
A sliding scale for medical fees based on ability to pay raises questions about justice and value.
The practise of some physicians is practically the philosophy of Christian socialism: “From every man according to his ability, to every man according to his need.”
“A Philadelphia judge,” says _American Medicine_, “has given expression to the opinion that ‘the life of a rich man is worth more than the life of a poor man, and the physician has a right to charge the millionaire more for his services than he does the laborer.’ He went on further to say that ‘the physician is unlike the merchant, who has goods of different quality to sell at various prices. He must give his best service in every case. Human life has a pecuniary value of variable quality, greater in the millionaire than in the laborer. Thus, the practitioner of common sense has a maximum and a minimum charge, and makes out his bills to suit the pecuniary circumstances of his patients.’” The writer thinks that “there will be no dissent on the part of right-thinking people” from this view. Carried to its logical conclusion, it would appear to justify a sliding-scale of prices for all the necessities of life, carefully adjusted to the varying incomes of the users. (Text.)
A city's true greatness comes from justice, love, and service, not wealth or fame.
What makes a city great and strong?
Not architecture’s graceful strength,
Nor factories’ extended length,
But men who see the civic wrong
And give their lives to make it right,
And turn its darkness into light.
What makes a city full of power?
Not wealth’s display nor titled fame,
Not fashion’s loudly-boasted claim,
But women, rich in virtue’s dower,
Whose homes, tho humble, still are great
Because of service to the state.
What makes a city men can love?
Not things that charm the outward sense,
Nor gross display of opulence,
But right, that wrong can not remove,
And truth, that faces civic fraud
And smites it in the name of God.
This is a city that shall stand,
A light upon a nation’s hill,
A voice that evil can not still,
A source of blessing to the land;
Its strength not brick, nor stone, nor wood,
But justice, love and brotherhood.
--_Author Unknown._
Justice for children depends on strengthening the home, the republic's foundation and hope.
Judge Ben B. Lindsey who has secured many things for the children during the last ten years, such as playgrounds, detention schools, public baths, probation system, summer outings, fresh-air camps, etc., says in the _Survey_:
What began to loom upon me almost to oppress me, was the injustice in our social and economic system that made most of these palliatives necessary. I began to see more than I ever saw in my life how the foundation of the republic is the home, and the hope of the republic is in the child that comes from the home, and that there can be no real protection, no real justice for the child, until justice is done the home. More than through books I saw through the tears and misfortunes of these children, the defects and injustice in our social, political and economic conditions, and I have to thank the child for my education. After ten years I owe more to the children than they owe to me. They have helped me be a better man, and, I am sure, a more useful and serviceable one. I had learned to love to work with them and for them in the boys’ clubs, the recreation centers, through the court and probation work and in other ways, and when I began to see, as I thought I saw, some of the causes of poverty, misfortune, misery, and crime, I began to question myself. Could I help do real justice to the child unless I could help smash some of these causes that were smashing the homes, crippling the parents and robbing the child of his birth-right?
A police officer punishes his son fairly, demonstrating impartial justice and accountability.
See DISEASE, EXEMPTION FROM.
IMPARTIALITY
Lieut. Edmund Blaney, of the Atlantic Avenue police station, Brooklyn, who locked up his son brought in on the charge of fighting, is to be commended for his determination that his own shall be treated no better than others. It is a gratifying instance of the absence of “pull” and a delightful example of paternal willingness to see that punishment is meted out when it should be. Lieutenant Blaney could have let his fighting son, a man of twenty-three, and the other prisoner go upon their promise to appear in court, and no one would have taken exception to such a display of fatherly interest, but he preferred the Spartan attitude. The public need not expect this rule to be generally followed, for not many parents have the firmness to deal out the same degree of severe treatment to their own offspring as to those of others. A not to be overlooked feature of the case is the evident reduction of the young man’s opinion of his ability to violate the law and escape the consequences. He thought, or said, that he could not be arrested because he was an officer’s son. That was yesterday. To-day he is wiser and it is hoped a slightly better citizen from a forced realization that ordinances are intended for all alike.--Brooklyn _Standard Union_.
Wealthy charity often overlooks true justice and burdens borne by the poor and working class.
Judge Ben B. Lindsey, in _The Survey_, tells of a visit he made to a refined and lovely home in a large city in the East:
The people in that home were wealthy, and undoubtedly sincere in their self-righteousness; and in the happiness they found in the little charities they provided for the children of the workers in the mills and mines near by. The fathers earned $1.50 a day, worked long hours, shared all the hazards of their employment. My ten years’ experience in juvenile court work compelled me to admit that the powers that made valuable the stocks and bonds whence the wealth of this home came would be arrayed against any measure in the Legislature that would do economic justice to the parents of these children. It seemed strange to me that our kind-hearted, wealthy family, with morning prayers and regular church attendance, could not see something in the teaching of the Master beyond the kind of charity I have mentioned. I could not help but find a real meaning in some of the platitudes; “Equal rights to all, special privileges to none”; “Bear ye one another’s burdens”; “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”; “Thy kingdom come--on earth.” How much was there of the real doing of the word? How well was it understood?
Punishment for crimes is often unjustly disproportionate between the poor and the wealthy.
* * * * *
A California paper recently said:
Eight years in prison for stealing eight copper cents from an Oakland store was the punishment dealt out to George Gron, who with a companion entered the store. Gron pleaded guilty. This sentence is in startling contrast to a year and a half given to J. Dalzell Brown, who wrecked the California Safe Deposit and Trust Company and robbed 1,200 depositors of nearly $9,000,000. Brown was tried only on one count, and he is now in charge of a deputy, enjoying the holidays because of his promise to give testimony against others in the bank wreck. All the other indictments against Brown have been dismist.
Imprisonment for debt was a cruel, irrational law causing needless suffering and injustice.
The law of imprisonment for debt, which existed so long in England, the land of freedom, whereby a creditor enforced payment of debt by imprisoning his debtor for unlimited periods, is perhaps the most irrational that ever existed. The purposeless cruelty of imprisonment for debt was demonstrated in 1792, when a woman died in Devon jail, after forty-five years’ imprisonment, for a debt of £19. And when the Thatched House Society set to work to ransom honest debtors by paying their debts, they, in twenty years, released 12,590 at a cost of 45 shillings per head. (Text.)--CROAKE JAMES, “Curiosities of Law and Lawyers.”
Even predators have a rightful place in nature, illustrating fairness in God's creation.
Over on the further side, in the shallow eddy, the pool was troubled a second, then there rose from it a wee sunfish, not more than three inches long, rose from it tail first and began balancing across the pool surface toward me, on his head. His tail quivered in the air, and I could see his freckles growing in the yellow transparency of his skin; yet, tho I watched with wide eyes, he was two-thirds the way across the pool toward me before I noticed beneath him the tip of the nose and the wicked little dark eye of a water-snake. At sight of him the demoiselles should have shrieked and flown away, but they made no move. I, however, indignant, arose, and seizing broken fragments of rock was about to lacerate him, and lose his prey, when I quite suddenly thought better of it. Had not I a few days before come down stream to the deep pool above and carried off a string of perch, sunfish, pouts, and an eel? Had not the water-snake also a right to his dinner?--WINTHROP PACKARD, “Wild Pastures.”
William Penn showed fairness and kindness in dealings with Native Americans, avoiding conflict.
* * * * *
Some of the early settlers of this country bargained with the Indians that for each fish-hook given, they were to give as much land as a bullock’s hide would cover. But the settlers cut the hide into thin strips, and made it cover a large area. William Penn, when he first came to Pennsylvania, bargained with the Indians that he would give a certain number of articles for as much land as a man could walk around in a certain time. The man covered so much more ground than the Indians believed he would, that they became dissatisfied and threatening. But Penn said to them, “You agreed to this way of measuring.” His companions wished to force the carrying out of this agreement, but Penn replied that that would be wrong toward these simple children of the prairie; he asked them what they thought would be right, and they simply demanded a few more rolls of cloth, to which Penn agreed. Not only was war averted, but the Indians were pleased with the fair and just spirit shown by the strangers, and became their friends.--JAMES T. WHITE, “Character Lessons.”
A boy tried to enforce fairness by physically altering ducks’ bills to match chicks’ size.
* * * * *
The story is told of a boy whose mother gave him some food to feed the chickens and little ducks. While feeding them he noticed that the ducks were scooping in nearly all the food. He saw that their large bills gave them a decided advantage and this he did not like. It did not exactly square with his notion of justice, so he got hold of a knife with a good edge to it, and just as fast as he could catch the ducklings he cut down their bills to match the size of that of the chicks.
A judge used flawed majority witness count to influence jury verdict unjustly.
Mr. Justice Perrot was a servile political judge, whose power of discrimination was well measured by the celebrated way in which he summed up to the jury in a case of a disputed watercourse, at Exeter Assizes. He concluded thus: “Gentlemen, there are fifteen witnesses who swear that the watercourse used to flow in a ditch on the north side of the hedge. On the other hand, gentlemen, there are nine witnesses who swear that the watercourse used to flow on the south side of the hedge. Now, gentlemen, if you subtract nine from fifteen, there remain six witnesses wholly uncontradicted, and I recommend you to give your verdict accordingly, for the party who called those six witnesses.”--CROAKE JAMES, “Curiosities of Law and Lawyers.”
Lengthy court cases delay justice, frustrating victims and their families.
A case that has been on Chicago court dockets for almost twenty years was brought to light, and an effort made to hasten the progress of the wheels of justice in its disposal. The case is a damage suit of the survivors of victims of the _Tioga_ steamer explosion July 11, 1890. Since it was started the original lawyers on both sides have died. The _Tioga_ was moored in the Chicago River, between Washington and Randolph streets, when the explosion occurred, resulting in an estimate of thirty deaths.
The suit was filed in the Circuit Court, but was transferred to the United States District Court. Technical pleas and hearing of evidence before a master in chancery have consumed the years of litigation.
Though nations and creeds change, the principles of justice remain eternal.
Nations change their names, their boundaries, their creeds and their languages. The altars of yesterday are but the curios of to-day. The temples that have been raised to the worships that have now disappeared from the face of the earth but move our wonder that beliefs so simple and so transparent should have nerved the minds of men to raise such marvels of architecture. But tho creeds and dynasties and languages are ephemeral, the principles of justice are eternal; and this Government, founded and built upon them, will, I believe, last to the end of time.
— WILLIAM BOURKE COCKRAN
Technology can serve as an impartial witness to reveal truth and promote accountability.
In an article in the _Evening Post_ on “Manners Over the Wire,” the writer says:
Some little thing may reform an age, the adage runs, and so perhaps the phonograph recording device, which was installed recently in the Copenhagen telephone exchange to check the ill-natured remarks of subscribers to central, by convicting offenders out of their own mouths, may bring about a revolution in the Danish city’s manners.
Probably one of the first thoughts of the man who invented the telephone, and knew that he could project sound over distance, was that now he could tell his stronger neighbor his candid opinion without risking the dog and a possible thrashing; one of his second thoughts was to put his new-found power into practise. And who, after all, should be the object of most of the exasperated remarks, shading from complaint to embroidered profanity, but central herself?
This Copenhagen found out, and set herself to remedy. University professors there who discover another flaw in Dr. Cook’s records and ring up the rector right away, only to find that the wire is busy because half a dozen colleagues have similar messages, must not abuse central; the connection will be switched at once to the phonograph, which has no feelings and is an unprejudiced witness in court. Testimony of as a will recorded thus was recently held valid in Russia; and the notaries will invent another form: “Appeared before me this day Phonograph No. 123, said phonograph being turned on, deposed, etc. ... Polonius, notary; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, witnesses.” Polonius’ advice, “Give thy thoughts no tongue,” holds good, and better for the Danes than in the times when, in language of to-day, the party at Elsinore had no ’phone.
True measurement depends on the standard used, highlighting the importance of integrity.
“How is it, Mr. Brown,” said a miller to a farmer, “that when I came to measure those ten barrels of apples I bought from you I found them nearly two barrels short?” “Singular, very singular; for I sent them to you in ten of your own flour barrels.” (Text.)
Partial guilt cannot excuse a crime; the whole person is accountable.
Many a man makes excuses for his errors that are no more reasonable than those of the lawyer whose client was sentenced by Judge Kent, the well-known jurist:
A man was indicted for burglary, and the evidence showed that his burglary consisted in cutting a hole through a tent in which several persons were sleeping and then projecting his head and arm through the hole and abstracting various articles of value. It was claimed by his counsel that, inasmuch as he did not actually enter the tent with his whole body, he had not committed the offense charged, and must, therefore, be discharged. Judge Kent, in reply to this plea, told the jury that if they were not satisfied that the whole man was involved in the crime, they might bring in a verdict of guilty against so much of him as was thus involved. The jury, after a brief consultation, found the right arm, the right shoulder and the head of the prisoner guilty of the offense of burglary. The judge sentenced the right arm, the right shoulder and head to imprisonment with hard labor in the State prison for two years, remarking that as to the rest of his body he might do with it what he pleased. (Text.)
Repaying kindness or offense in kind reflects natural justice and character.
The baronet in the following story followed nature’s favorite method of repaying in kind:
James McNeil Whistler, the famous artist, was extravagantly fond of a French poodle that he owned, says the New York _Tribune_, and once, when the little dog had some trouble with his throat, he sent for Sir Morell Mackenzie, the great throat specialist. Mackenzie was not a bit pleased by being called in to treat a dog, but he prescribed, nevertheless, and had a partial revenge by charging a big fee. The next day he “got even” most effectually by sending for Mr. Whistler in great haste, and the artist, thinking that he had been summoned on some matter connected with his beloved poodle, dropt his work and rushed to Mackenzie’s house. On his arrival, Sir Morell said very gravely: “How do you do, Mr. Whistler? I wished to see you about painting my front door.” (Text.)
Sometimes moral justice justifies actions that legal systems might otherwise condemn.
A wife has a right to rob her husband, in some cases, according to a decision of Judge Gemmell in the Municipal Court (Chicago). Gustave H. DeKolkey had had his wife arrested for taking money from him by force.
“My wife robbed me right in my own home,” said DeKolkey. “She got a boarder and her brother to help hold me. Then she went through my pockets and got $11.”
Mrs. DeKolkey was led up in front of the court’s desk.
“Did you rob him?” asked the judge.
“Yes, I did,” she said. “There was no other way to get money out of him. He hasn’t given me a cent for over a year. So I decided to rob him. I called my brother and we held him and I got what was in his pockets.”
“This is a plain case of robbery,” said the judge, “but it was perfectly justifiable under the circumstances. The defendant is discharged. A wife has the right to hold up her husband when he squanders his wages and does not give her enough for her support.”
A summary of the view of the legal profession as portrayed by a variety of television shows: People's Court, Perry Mason, Matlock and L.A. Law. Each one romanticizes important American myths. Their disparate views of justice only serve to tease and torment the human soul.
Once crime victims had no voice, but now they get their day in court. After Colin Ferguson shot to death five commuters on a Long Island RR train on December 7, 1993, victims got to vent their anger. “I feel this animal should suffer till the day he dies… Given five minutes with Colin Ferguson, this coward would know the meaning of suffering” said Robert Giugliano.
Carolyn McCarthy said, “… Hatred would take away the strength I needed… We will learn to laugh again. We will learn to love again, and we will survive. But you will not.” John Stein, a victim-assistance group’s deputy director, spoke at the trial of a man who killed Stein’s cousin a few year ago; he describes it as “an existential act, done for its own end, not to influence the judge … to express hatred for what [the defendant] had done, and hatred for him. Of all the various kinds of punishment we can inflict on any one offender, the one they most deserve is the rage of the victims they have hurt.”
The danger in victim’s rights is giving in to hatred and letting mob emotions rule the day.
#357
*
Judge Joseph Wapner, of "People's Court" and a Jew, finds that many American legal principles go back to the Bible, especially the book of Leviticus.
19:13 Fair Employment laws.
19:14 Concern for handicapped.
19:15 Evenhanded justice (rare in ancient world, and even rare today).
Comparison made with King John of England, who was so cruel and
arbitrary his nobles forced him to sign the Magna Carta.
Trial by jury prefigured in this verse.
19:16 Slander.
25:37 Unfair interest.
19:19 Do not deal falsely. Officer said he clocked car going 60, man said it
couldn't go over 30. Wapner drove car. Bad transmission, wouldn't
go over 35. Declared "not guilty."
19:18 Love neighbor as yourself. Jesus repeated this. Many people do not,
and sue at the drop of a hat. Divorces.
"I see the links between families, friends and neighbors dissolving. Silly quarrels that shouldn't last five minutes get into state courts. Neighbors arguing over a spare parking space have to get a judge to settle the matter; children need a court to patch up arguments with their parents. Men, women and children are alone. Without the healing power of love, we are becoming a nation of lonely people. Neither the law nor a thousand judges can retie the bonds between people. Each person will have to start doing that himself. And I know a good place to start - with Leviticus 19:18: Love thy neighbor as thyself."
#460
*
The feeling that something is not fair is perhaps the most morally offensive feeling there is, says Willar Gaylin, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. We all carry around an innate sense of justice. What should we do when our integrity is injured?
1. Take attitude that the wrongdoer will be punished by their conscience.
2. The wrongdoer needs to be publically punished.
a. But justice is hard to determine. (Revenge is over-reaction).
3. Fantasizing can be cathartic.
4. Express your indignation. Most people don't like to be disliked.
One woman sent a colleague who had undermined her project a photo of
himself, cut into pieces. Years later he confessed it truly had
chastened him.
Cost of revenge:
1. Hurts yourself.
Divorcee agreed to sell her husband's Mercedes-Benz and split the
proceeds as part of their divorce settlement, signed over the car to
the first bidder for $25 and sent a check for $12.50 to the enraged
husband. She got back at her husband, but lost a lot of money.
2. Fantasizing revenge can take over reality.
Society excludes certain groups from the need to be treated with any respect. Convicted murderers are on the moral boundary, but Bundy fell beyond the line. An analysis of why students cheered at his execution.
