Justice

During our last meeting before Spring Break, we began a discussion on justice--specifically, as it related to a proposal before the legislature to allowed students and faculty to carry handguns on campus, but also justice in general. Alas, I did not have the breadth of knowledge of the Baha'i writings that others have, so I was not able at the time to draw upon these to address some of the issues raised. But voila! Here at home I can look at my library and find some very useful passages. So take a look at this and we can continue our discuss when we return next week.

Specifically, I looked in Some Answered Questions by Abdul-Baha. (By way of background: Abdul-baha was the son of Baha'u'llah, the Manifestation of God for our age. While his writings are not considered sacred, Baha'is consider them authoritative.) The following is from a passage entitled "The Right Method of Treating Criminals":

"Question: Should a criminal be punished, or forgiven and his crime overlooked?

" Answer: --There are two sorts of retributory punishments. One is vengeance, the other, chastisement. Man has not the right to take vengeance, but the community has the right to punish the criminal; and this punishment is intended to warn and to prevent so that no other person will dare to commit a like crime. This punishment is for the protection of man's rights; but it is not vengeance; vengeance appeases the anger of the heart by opposing one evil to another. This is not allowable, for man has not the right to take vengeance. But if criminals were entirely forgiven, the order of the world would be upset. So punishment is one of the essential necessities for the safety of communities, but he who is oppressed by a transgressor has not the right to take vengeance. On the contrary, he should forgive and pardon, for this is worthy of the world of man.

"The communities must punish the oppressor, the murdered, the malefactor, so as to warn and restrain others from committing like crimes. But the most essential thing is that the people must be educated in such a way that no crimes will be committed; for it is possible to educate the masses so effectively that they will avoid and shrink from perpetrating crimes, so that crime itself will appear to them as the greatest chastisement, the utmost condemnation and torment. Therefore, no crimes which require punishment will be committed."

I will return to that passage in a minute, as there is elaboration further on. However, I wanted to suggest perhaps a further meaning for education as described here. I believe that education should not only apply to restraint of people from committing crimes, but also education as to the meaning of true justice as opposed to vengeance. As described by Abdul-baha, vengeance has no place in the realm of jurisprudence. Vengeance is simply another form of evil; therefore, I would conclude, if you construct a system of jurisprudence that is based at least in part on vengeance, then that system is perpetrating evil.

Further on Abdul-baha says:

"...the community has the right to defense and self-protection; moreover, the community has no hatred or animosity for the murderer: it imprisons and punishes him merely for the protection and security of others. It is not for the purpose of taking vengeance upon the murderer, but for the purpose of inflicting punishment by which the community will be protected. If the community and the inheritors of the murdered one were to forgive and return good for evil, the cruel would be continually ill-treating others.... Vicious people, like wolves, would destroy the sheep of God. The community has no ill-will and rancor in the infliction of punishment; and it does not desire to appease the anger of the heart; its purpose is by punishment to protect others so that no atrocious actions may be committed."(Emphasis mine.)

Here Abdul-baha introduces the distinction between the actions of the individual and the actions of the community. Individuals can and should forgive; it is to the community, however, to decide punishment and thereby enable justice to occur.

Thus far we have dealt with the community's proper stance on forgiveness and punishment. But as Eric pointed out, "What about the case of an individual acting self-defense? What if I am being attacked? Have I not the right to defend myself?" Here, Abdul-baha offers the following insight:

"...if someone oppresses, injures and wrongs another, and the wronged man retaliates, this is vengeance and is censurable.... No...he must return good for evil, and not only forgive, but also, if possible, be of service to his oppressor. This conduct is worthy of man: for what advantage does he gain by vengeance? The two actions are equivalent; if one action is reprehensible, both are reprehensible. The only difference is that one was committed first, the other later." (Emphasis mine.)

Interesting, yes? This really addresses the heart of the matter which is the heart itself. Evil exists in the hearts of men. To encourage or perpetrate the existence of evil in seeking vengeance in the name of justice is to join in the evil itself--it is turning your own heart to evil. Instead of doing this we must not seek vengeance but rather return good for evil and, if possible, be of service to our oppressor.

Now, I can hear people saying, "That's just naive and goes against human nature." I would counter that it is idealistic, and that one of the purposes of religion--or enhancement of one's spiritual nature, if you will--is to counter the baser aspects of human nature with that which is worthy of the world of man.

[Here I must elaborate, for some might say "What do you mean `the world of man'? Didn't I just point out that the nature of man is corrupt and violent? So why do you say `worthy of the world of man'? Isn't that a cruel and terrible place?" This is where we get into the true nature of man--the higher nature, the spiritual nature. I think no one would disagree that humans are endowed with capacities that separate us from other animal beings. We are capable of higher thought, are aware of our own mortality, have a conscience, etc. It is through our awareness and enhancement of our higher possibilities, our virtues, that we realize our greatest capacities as individuals and as a society. Baha'is believe that these inherent capacities are a gift from God--they bring us into tune, if you will, with that mystic chord of the universal harmony that is God. By developing these virtues and practicing them, we help create the true world of man, which is simply another one of the worlds of God.]

Abdul-baha states that "forgiveness is one of the attributes of the Merciful One, so also justice is one of the attributes of the Lord." But he goes on to state: "The tent of existence is upheld upon the pillar of justice and not upon forgiveness. The continuance of mankind depends upon justice and not forgiveness." Again, I feel this emphasizes forgiveness as the provenance of the individual, not the community. Thus: "...the constitution of the communities depends on justice, not upon forgiveness." (Emphasis mine.)

This is highlighted even further, I believe, in a very insightful passage drawing upon Christ's injunction to "turn the other cheek" in which Abdu-baha states:

"Then what Christ meant by forgiveness and pardon is not that, when nations attack you, burn your homes, plunder your goods, assault your wives, children and relatives, you should be submissive in the presence of these tyrannical foes and allow them to perform cruelties and oppressions. No the words of Christ refer to the conduct of two individuals toward each other: if one person assaults another, the injured one should forgive him. But the communities must protect the rights of man. So if someone assaults, injures, oppresses, or wounds me, I will offer no resistance, and I will forgive him. But if a person wishes to assault [my neighbor], certainly I will prevent him [from carrying out that assault]. Although for the malefactor noninterference is apparently a kindness, it would be an oppression to [my neighbor]."

In short, forgiveness is a matter involving individuals, whereas punishment--a fundamental element of justice--is a matter for the community. In helping prevent the assault on my neighbor, I would be acting as a part of my community and not on my own behalf. So perhaps this does offer a bit more guidance to the point Eric made regarding self defense. I would say (a bit flippantly) have good neighbors and a strong community, and there will be no need for self defense!

More seriously, I think this returns us to another point raised in our discussion, which was the distrust of individuals towards the police or others entrusted with care of our property or physical safety. That is why, some of us observed, that people would rather carry a gun for "protection".

Yet this presents a possible conundrum within the context of our discussion of guns and self-defense. If I am attacked by a person with a gun and shoot back, according to what we've just read, I would be guilty of vengeance. However, what if I am carrying a gun and a man shoots at my neighbor? Would I be allowed to use my gun to "protect" my neighbor? I think here we have to look closely at what Abdul-baha actually said as well as the context of things he stated previously. In the passage regarding acting in behalf of his neighbor, he said "prevent" the malefactor from perpetrating harm. Certainly, if shooting the gunman was the only available means of preventing the gunman from further harming my neighbor, then...possibly?...shooting the gunman might fit the exigencies as described by Abdul-baha. However--and mind you, this is all just my own personal insight and carries no other weight than that--I think this whole setup of me carrying a gun betrays in its very essence the idea of justice. For why would I as an individual carry a gun for in the first place? And here I mean just walking around, packing heat (even with a concealed license). Would I really only ever use it to defend someone else? Is that my only possible intent, the only possible use of that gun? After all, I could never use it to defend myself. And isn't carrying a gun with no intention of acting in my own defense a tad...well, ridiculous? Really, it is in fact dangerous! I could be attacked by someone who is unarmed, but when that person uncovers my weapon, I have just in effect handed him a means to escalate his violence and harm others besides me. At this point I have actually harmed the community by carrying a gun, and this would contravene the exigencies described by Abdul-baha.

Here again, let us look at the society in which we live. We are no longer (as Justin-sensei observed) living on a wild frontier with only a flintlock rifle standing between a man (or woman) protecting his family from outlaws. We have civilly-constituted authorities designated for that purpose. So--again, as Justin pointed out!!--having a gun, in my home, on my private property, can be seen as justifiable as the cops cannot be present instantly if someone attacks my family--my family, mind you, not me, as I would not do so if the attack was against myself alone. However, in public places I do not see at all where individuals carrying guns in public places is at all desirable, even if it is legal.

So here we return to what Abdul-baha implied by education. If we attend to the education of people--all people, both potential perpetrators and victims--then we would greatly reduce the need, or even the desire, for people to feel the need to carry handguns. This will take time and effort, naturally, but this is the only effective and sure path towards achieving true justice--justice driven solely by the reasoned demands for protection of society and not by a desire for vengeance.

Here I close with quotes from The Hidden Words (that I could not recall from memory on Friday!). These are the very first quotations, which illuminate their centrality to the teachings of Baha'u-llah. The first deals with the state of an individual's heart and the second withe centrality of justice:

1
O Son of Spirit!

My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting.

2
O Son of Spirit!

The best beloved of all things in my sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart, how it behoveth thee to be. Verily, justice is my gift to thee and the sign of my loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.

Allah-u-abha!!