The problem of justice arose at the times when courts appeared. This problem is not so new; it was the consideration of many people hundreds of years ago. The possibility of justice for people without any power and without any financial support is the one of the main items which worry people in modern world. Lots of people face this problem and very often they cannot decide this problem in their favor. Different people have different understandings of justice especially if they are on different sides of item called law. Some people are eager to fight till the end to prove their case, even if they have no any law power and support. There are people who believe in law and justice and there are people who deny it.
A good example of persistence in looking for justice and the denying this justice is the novel “The Anarchist: His Dog” by Susan Glaspell. Stubby, the main character wanted a dog but he could not allow it himself as he was feeding all his family and could not find money to pay dog tax.
Stubby’s father explains his son that the dog is very expensive and no one cares that they do not have enough money to pay dog tax. He says that there is no justice in reference to poor people in the government, as “doing the best you could make no difference to government; hard-luck stories did not go when it comes to the laws of the land” (Glaspell 2004-139).
Stubby’s father insists that he is “against the government. He does not believe in the law and order. The real bad anarchists shoot them that try to enforce the laws of the land” (Glaspell 2004-142).
Lots of people do not believe in injustice. Most of them faced this problem and did not win the case. There are lots of examples when people who have no dramatic effect could not prove their case. The problem is universal. As it was already mentioned, people from different sides of law have different understanding of justice and unfortunately, people who have more power and support have more chances to win the court case.
The example of injustice in reference to poor people is presented in the newspaper article by Ian Fisher. The author represents the reader with the story of a woman who was raped by a guy who managed to escape from police. The relatives of the woman told that the police did not try hard to catch him. The man was the member of a landowning family, so the victim’s family was sure that he would be able to bribe the police. (Fisher 2002) People often do not believe in justice when influential people are involved in the case.
Some people believe injustice under any circumstances. Stubby in the novel by Susan Glaspell tries to do all he can to keep the dog. The father’s disbelief in law pushes him to prove the versa.
Stubby tries to convince the police to release him from dog tax as he has no money. “I am an anarchist and do not believe in government or the law and the order. I would not be an anarchist if I could get the money. I am against government” (Glaspell 2004-142), these words Stubby writes to police when he had lost any hope to keep the dog.
Actually, Stubby believed injustice, and by those words he wanted to persuade police to make an exception for him and release him from dog tax. The situation interests the newspapers. The story ends happily and the boy got what he wanted at the end.
The story is a good example of justice. The boy showed that there is justice, order and law in the world if one tries to do all he/she can, and if person believes in what he does and wants to achieve.
The examples of justice, when influential people are involved in the process and on the other side from law and poor people, also exist. But the number of such cases is not so numerous. When the case is led by principal person and he or she has nothing to be afraid of and for whom the justice is in the first place, such person will do all her best to maintain law and order in the case. Such people exist, they do not care about your of his influence or position in the society, such judges care only about justice and try to provide it in every case.
The example of a real judge who cares only about justice is David H. Souter. Linda Greenhouse wrote an article about him, “David H. Souter: Justice unbound”, in The New York Times. Linda described him as a very honest person who was bound by nothing except evidence. The only goal of this person was to be protected from privileges and powers of people who could try to use their influences on him. He was not afraid to appear in public as his consciousness was clear. During his entire career he did not provide any injustice decisions. He was unbound from any promises and obligations. (Greenhouse 2009)
The provided two ideas about justice are very different, I would even say opposite. It is impossible to convey to the first ones that justice exists as they know from their own experience that it is not true. People who had ever experienced injustice in their life will never agree that there is law and order in modern society. It is impossible to convey these people’s injustice. But some actions could be made, some ideas and solutions could be provided to prevent such situations where not justice and truth are dominant in courts but the influence and power of some people are dominant.
We searched for some ways out of the situation and have found some solutions to the problem. There are some actions that could be effective. The government of every country should provide the supervision on all courts. Some new department or committee could be organized, where people would not have any concernments in any case. The committee should be responsible for searching for any violations in the court procedure and punishing those who appeared to be guilty.
At least two people must be punished: those who influenced the court procedure and those who allowed influencing it. In other words, it should be the judge, who closed his eyes to some evidence which prevented to wrong verdict, and the accused, who wanted to escape the punishment by means of the influence and power of his or her friends or relatives.
In sum, it should be mentioned that the problem of justice is a very delicate and debate question that should be considered separately and independently in every case. People should believe in justice and try to reach it with any method. The goal justifies methods; this should be the main principle in searching for truth and justice.
Works Cited
Fisher, Ian. “Seeing no justice, a rape victim chooses death.” The New York Times. 2002.
Glaspell, Susan. Lifted Masks. Kessinger Publishing, 2004.
Greenhouse, Linda. “David H. Souter: Justice unbound.” The New York Times. 2009.