Quite often, the terms justice and vengeance have been perceived to mean the same thing (Khadduri, 2000). Nevertheless, empirical research studies have proved that they are totally different both in their meaning as well as application. In this case, justice can be defined as the act of administering a deserved punishment or a reward to an individual in accordance with the law. On the other hand, vengeance implies affliction imposed on a person as a result of committing an offensive act. According to the events presented in Lee (1962), vengeance is more harmful and humiliating than justice bearing in mind that in most instances, it may cause both emotional and physical injuries to an individual.
In as much as the concepts are different, we cannot ignore the fact that they have certain unique similarities. For example, the acts occur in response to an offense that has been committed (Khadduri, 2000). Additionally, in either case, people tend to gain satisfaction against their trespassers or, in other words, there is some level of satisfaction that is derived by the affected individual when an offender is taken through a rigorous process of justice. In my own perspective, I firmly believe that both justice and vengeance are largely triggered by the fact that society always intends to control its own belief system and how individual members generally behave towards the expected norms.
Is there a universal difference?
According to the film by Shakespeare (1992), it is apparent that the differences that exist between the two aforementioned concepts are quite universal. For instance, justice is administered to an individual through a lawful and well-prescribed proceeding, while vengeance occurs out of anger where an individual or society takes the law on their own hands (Marno, 2008). According to philosophical views, justice has been perceived to be quite complex. This is due to the fact that one has to have intellectual empathy upon the offended individual in order to take effective measures against his counterpart (Shakespeare, 1992). In this case, Justice aims at maximizing satisfaction but not to deter crime.
Contrastingly, vengeance is administered with the aim of deterring crime, and thus there is no careful choice of punishments rendered. That’s notwithstanding, justice is meant for long term interests for the benefit of the individual and society. On the contrary, vengeance is meted out for short-term interest since it is fuelled by anger. There has been a huge controversy that vengeance is part of justice (Marno, 2008). However, research has confirmed that this is very true only that real justice tries to balance the needs of the society and the victim and the offender (Shakespeare,1992). Justice is a moral virtue that is publically accepted since it involves a fair trial through the rule of law. However, delayed justice prompts people to use vengeance to punish criminals.
What grounds a society understanding of justice and how it should be administered?
The contemporary society uses justice as a conceptual framework that duly assists in governing mankind as well as human-directed actions. Nonetheless, understanding of justice varies from one society to another. Notably, different societies hold and value various levels of ethics. This may, to a large extent, influence their notion of justice. In this case, there is a lack of a unitary apprehension through which societies can adequately understand justice (Lee, 1962). Currently, society views justice as one of the major virtues in social institutions alongside charity, compassion, and benevolence. Irrespective of some differences in understanding of justice, there are similar views that are held by societies concerning the concept. For instance, a common perception of justice is that it fosters harmonious relationships between warring parties (Shakespeare, 1992).
Besides this, justice has been understood as a divine command that is used to boost morality in society (Khadduri, 2000). In this case, justice devises practical considerations toward certain situations that are evident in the community. Apparently, society devises a recognizable principle that is concrete and objective, thus providing a foundation for the respect of individual rights. Thus the society understands justice as the act of giving an individual what he deserves. This has been confirmed by Khadduri (2000) that the will of the majority in the society should be rendered genuinely. For this reason, society administers justice with reference to fairness and rightness of individual interests or feelings. Moreover, society perceives justice as a tool for achieving civilization among human races through legality, laws, and philosophies that are used to prove criminals guilty (Marno, 2008). In addition to this, the societal understanding of justice is that it is more legitimate. Therefore it should be applied effectively to punish perpetrators while making the victim feel whole.
In rare cases, society understands justice as a natural law since it deals with actions that occur naturally out of individual will. Philosophers assert that for any action, there must be opposing reactions, and thus justice is suitable to respond to natural actions in the society. Nevertheless, we can not ignore the perception that Justice exists out of human creations. Thinkers assert that human beings devised justice as a tool to foster mutual agreement over hypothetical situations. With this in mind, Justice helps people to overcome bias and foster equality under the law, as it is evident in Lee (1962).
How do individuals and societies determine whether Has justice been delivered?
In order for individuals and societies to determine whether justice has been delivered, there is a logical procedure that is supposed to be followed to the letter (Nardin, 2011). For instance, there are institutions that have been established to ensure that justice is administered to both affected individuals and societies. A typical example of such an institution is the courts system. The societies normally have jurisdiction body that render impartial verdict on behalf of the community (Nardin, 2011). Through available evidences, the juries are able to declare an individual guilty or innocent. One can determine whether justice has been delivered by evaluating whether all the laws has been followed to render a fair measure against the offender. In this case, when justice is delivered, there is satisfaction. If this fails, there is dissatisfaction and to some extent this can lead to vengeance.
How can we apply these ideas or depictions of justice to practical cases?
Rosenbaum (2011) asserts that it is possible to apply the idea of justice though sometimes moral challenges are inevitable. This is evident in the case of Anders Breivik in Norway who committed murder of 76 people. This case poses a moral challenge to the country on whether to apply vengeance or revenge against the crime. Therefore, there is need to have means in which certain actions will be dealt with legally and morally to see that justice is fully delivered. In some cases, inadequate delivery of legal justice might probably lead to failure of another (Lee, 1962). For instance, failure of taking full measure to administer justice can lead to vengeance. To some extent, it is advisable to apply both justice and vengeance so as to deter people from committing criminal acts at the expense of the law. For instance, in Norway, the maximum corporal punishment given to criminals is of 21 years in prison. People might feel that the punishment bears less the weight of the crime (Rosenbaum, 2011). For example, the case of Michael Woodmansee who murdered a 5year-old toddler was sentenced to 40 years in prison and his time for release is almost due. Such a gruesome act can stir revenge within the society especially when people’s interests on such cases are not addressed. In the long run, this can attract use of alternative means such as vengeance when legal justice fails (Rosenbaum, 2011).
To recap it all, it is imperative to note that justice and vengeance are two closely related terms which are equally different both in meaning and application in day-to-day-life. For instance, while any process of justice is clearly documented especially on how it should be carried out, vengeance is not structured in any way largely due to the fact that it is an outcome of an individual’s anger out of a distressing situation. On the same note, it is also worth to mention that both vengeance and justice may bring satisfaction to the affected victim.
References
Khadduri, M. (2000). The Islamic Conception of Justice” Voices of Wisdom. Belmont: Wadsworth, Inc.
Lee, H. (1962). To Kill a Mockingbird. Web.
Marno, M. (2008). The Stoning of Soraya M. Web.
Rosenbaum, T. (2011). Justice? Vengeance? You need both. Web.
Shakespeare, W. (1992). The tragedy of Hamlet, prince of Denmark (B.A. Mowat & P. Werstine, Eds.). New York: Washington Square-Pocket.