So, Define Justice.

Crime and punishment I understand. The state says you can’t do something; and if you do and get caught, the state punishes you by way of deterrence. Although I’m sure the value of deterrence is vastly overrated, at least the principle is clear enough. The problem is that the whole subject gets listed under the heading of Justice, and I struggle to know the difference between justice and vengeance. Someone said ‘Revenge is the abject pleasure of an abject mind.’ There is an undercurrent of presumption in the conduct and governance of what we like to call ‘civilised society’ that vengeance belongs to the lower mind and a lower order of social organisation. ‘Justice,’ on the other hand, has gravitas. It has a noble ring to it. It speaks of order, propriety and balance. It is a force for good, protecting us from the wild, dissolute and dangerous excesses of an unregulated society. Nobody questions the rightness of justice. It’s another thing that lifts us above the level of the animal, because it has thought behind it. My problem is this: I agree that revenge is the abject pleasure of an abject mind. I’m human enough to have wanted it on occasion, but the higher part of my mind rejects the concept. I recognise it as something unworthy that lurks in some dark corner of my emotional response system. And so I experience a certain conflict, and I wonder whether the resolution lies in understanding why justice is a wholly different thing. Frankly, I don’t. I’ve heard people being interviewed about some crime or other. They say they want justice, even though it’s apparent that what they actually want is vengeance, and they are – consciously or unconsciously – using a euphemism to legitimise a reaction that is culturally unacceptable. I’ve heard politicians and policemen trotting out the old rhetoric ‘This is not about vengeance; this is about justice.’ ‘Justice has been done,’ they say, when they actually mean that revenge is sweet. I’ve considered whether justice is nobler because it leans towards recompensing the victim. But we still seek justice, even when there is no possibility of recompense. I’ve wondered whether it’s all to do with balance. But so is vengeance. An eye for an eye is the same whether it’s taken by the state or the victim’s family. And yet one is just and the other is deemed to be criminal. So far, all I’ve been able to come up with is the notion that justice is regulated vengeance; it is vengeance with thought behind it. Does that make it so different? I’m not saying that we don’t need law; heaven knows the human animal hasn’t reached that stage of maturity yet. But it strikes me that the difference between the two is a lot smaller and less clear than most people think it is. Anyone who has seen the final scenes of 'Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence,' and been as moved as I was by the poignancy of it, will know what I mean.