Brandon Ferdig asks whether it’s revenge people really want when they demand justice.
Another Floridian’s untimely death.
But this article isn’t about the tragedy. It’s about the response to it. And in regards to this, one word comes to mind: revenge.
On the USA Today website, the story of Robert Champion’s hazing death was what you’d expect: details about the event (him being beaten by hazers in his band), the charges that were made against the hazers (hazing by death 3rd degree felony up to 6 years in prison), and reactions from legal experts and Champion’s family.
The reactions were also what you’d expect. In hearing that the hazers were facing up to 6 years, USA Today wrote, “Champion’s mother, Pam Champion, said she’s disappointed the defendants weren’t charged with offenses that carry longer sentences.”
I understand this sentiment—to the degree that I can, me having no children. But if someone killed one of my brothers or my sister, in my emotional state, I’d want the perpetrator to really have it.
I also watched the AP video attached to the USA Today article. It featured law professor/former prosecutor, Tamara Lave. She also expressed her disappointment that prosecutors in this case didn’t try for tougher charges. I guess I can understand this, as well. After all, she is a former prosecutor.
Then I got to the bottom of the article and read the comments. The gist of revenge became dominant:
“At the very least punish those responsible to the full extent of existing laws.”
“It better result in jail time!! And a lot of it! They MURDERED this poor kid for no other reason than to just be f@#$ing idiots!”
“This is like mob mentality they should all serve major time in prison all of them!”
Yes, I know commenters are known for being brash at times, but this is no anomaly. This is America.
Most people don’t like to admit they are vengeful, but when you look at a case like this and boil down the reactions, you’ll see that the idea of justice has long since been evaporated. Yet under its guise people seek to add harm and pain to an already terrible situation by making the perpetrators suffer.
When you have your sights set on seeing someone suffer, when you feel satisfaction that another is suffering, that isn’t justice. It’s revenge.
Justice is about righting wrongs committed, about doing whatever’s possible to give back what you took. Of course, one can’t take back a death, but in this case whatever can be done by the perpetrators—monetary compensation, advocate against hazing, any good they can do to add consolation to this tragedy—is made impossible behind bars.
I’m not against jails. It may be the appropriate place for the offenders if they are truly dangerous people and a threat to society. Trouble is, there’s little room for a discussion about safety or justice as defined above because vengeance is a much more impassioned plea.
Think about it: it’s so normal to conflate justice and revenge that we equate the punishment of the offender with the worth of the person offended. The prosecutor, Tamara Lave, said in the video regarding the charges sought, “it seems to me, like, Mr. Champion’s life was worth more than that.” Since when did we equate people’s worth with how we avenge them?—as if Mr. Champion’s life was worthless otherwise.
When a tragedy has occurred we should recognize the pain and damage caused, and instead of simply reacting to it with calls for eye for an eye, we should decide how to best move forward—to heal the wounds. You’d be surprised how infrequently this includes jail.
Again, if safety is a concern, put the perpetrators in jail. But if they aren’t a threat, have them pay for funeral expenses, seek counseling for their emotional problems allowing for—and certainly as a result of—killing a man, and live their lives to help make up—in the best they can—for the terrible thing they’ve done.
That would be justice.
—Photo credit: Kevin Coles/Flickr
The courts are composed of private citizens. The “who carries it out ” part of the definitions has nothing to do with whether we call it justice or revenge. That’s rediculous.
It is impossible to make a dead victim whole again. All we have is revenge. There is no justice for the murdered.
From my perspective the only difference between vengeance and justice is the former is carried out by private citizens and the latter by courts. Neither really looks at undoing what can be undone concerning the effects of a crime.
If I was harmed then yes I want vengeance and I would not be merciful. That is why we have laws requiring that “justice” is served by others, for vast fees.
I like your distinction, Transhuman. I think that’s the popular way we define the difference. My point is to notice just how much revenge is seeped into our justice system, though.
And I’d go so far as to say we rarely see true justice–the undoing, the making up for wrongs committed. I’m trying to get us to consider such amends.
I think there’s a place in a justice system for the rigorous punishment of offenders. The desire for vengeance, whether it’s cultural or innate, evolved for a reason: To send a message to others that this can’t happen again. When offenders like Zimmerman look like they’re going to walk free, its true that it sparks a desire for vengeance, but I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable. He clearly thought he was in the right to shoot that boy, there are undoubtably others like him and unless that ssumption is challenged with court cases and jail time this situation is likely… Read more »
I guess I come from a perspective that people aren’t in need of a message from the government to tell them what is right and wrong. Whether a guilty party goes free doesn’t alter my consideration of what is moral/immoral.
OJ getting away didn’t increase spousal murder.
I think your outlook is a little over-concerned about people being swayed.
When you ask for Justice and they don’t give it to you… yea, then Revenge becomes your only Justice.
And not just against your enemy, but revenge against the system that allowed her to walk free.
I would add that your proposals are a recipe for vigilantism. You want to let people go – and in practice, what you mean is wealthy people – after they simply pay a minor fine. You seem to think that this would be met by everyone just throwing their hands up and letting bygones be bygones. History indicates that a more likely result would be armed groups of the victim’s relatives dragging the perpetrator (or some other member of their family) out onto their lawn and either hanging them or burning them alive. Followed by that person’s relatives doing the… Read more »
Soullite, Honestly, you keep reading classism into this that just isn’t there. I’m currently doing work for a criminal justice clinic, and there are ones like it at every major law school in America. I can assure you that hundreds of us go out every single day and work to ensure lighter sentences and dropped charges for people who are far from “wealthy.” I also don’t know where the idea of a “small fine” came from. What we want is to see that people’s lives are not ended because they make a mistake. One felony conviction should not destroy your… Read more »
There is no justice in this country. If you’re poor, the system cracks down on you for the most minor of offenses. If you’re rich, you can get away with driving your car into a crowd full of people. This article assumes that we’re starting from a place we’re not really starting from. Nobody in this country has ever seen real justice, so we demand revenge. That’s all there really is to it.
6 years for murder isn’t justice. Wanting more isn’t the same thing as wanting revenge. Demanding an eye for an eye would be revenge.
I think Scandinavia understands this better than any of us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGTzbj3fRSw
Watch towards the end.
Deterrence, revenge, and punishment… when was the last time you heard anybody mention the word “rehabilitation” or “reform” in connection with our justice system?
And with all that said there are still areas in the justice system where we aren’t even close to parity, where revenge(justic) is metted out based on criteria not even associated with the elements of the crime.
http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0423a.html
A good article on this concept
This one is also covers the same topic but in relations to victims of crime
http://www.nber.org/digest/aug00/w7676.html
The interesting thing about the last study is that this even happens when the victim is random , i.e. vehicular manslaughter.
Awesome info, John. Thanks!
Justice and revenge are two sides of the same coin. Greek philosopher Solon established the legal code that replaced private revenge with public justice system. With the establishment of the public justice system, it is the state that avenges for the wronged party and punishes the offenders. Any leniency toward the offender would neither satiate the desire of revenge of the offended nor deter the offender from wrongful conduct.. The statue of Lady Justice symbolizes what justice should be blindfolded, scales in one hand and sword in another. Judicial system should not consider other things except the offense of perpetrator,… Read more »
One of the principles behind prison is that it acts as deterrence. If people don’t receive the proscribed sentences, we lose the deterrence. If we come out and say that in this case jail isn’t warranted because of XYZ, then we should produce XYZ. It becomes difficult to suggest that they won’t reoffend unless you can show how we should have known that they would offend in the first place. It should be a burden on the defense to prove this. Lastly, what prevents them from making amends to the injured party after release? What stops them from making public… Read more »
Revenge and Justice are the same thing in our current judicial system. We operate under the concept of retributive justice where crimes are met with punishment. However, this can be problematic as sentences exists regardless of mitigating factors. For instance, committing the same crime an individual, whether they are a pauper or a millionaire, will be fined the same price. Yet clearly the fine hurts the pauper more than the millionaire. It also fails to account for rehabilitation, leading to an ever-increasing number of incarcerated people for minor offenses (like marijuana use, petty theft, etc.) as well as injustice within… Read more »
Your argument seems to be that because revenge is played out toward those who are unfairly discriminated against, that it should be played out toward the class doing the discriminating. That two wrongs make a right. Careful, Zek. Justification and satisfaction towards others’ suffering is how we stay in this mess, not get out of it. “It’s truly knowing that the person who hurt someone is, at least this once, not getting away with it like so many others.” I don’t want to see people who harm others get away with anything, either. But I’m not about to take pleasure… Read more »
Brandon, It’s not about two wrongs making a right; it’s about recognizing the hypocrisy which results from saying we shouldn’t clamor so loudly for justice for fear it’ll lead to vengeance, when the clamor for justice is how so many cases are even handled at all. It wasn’t the Sandford P.D. that decided to investigate Trayvon Martin’s death. It wasn’t the authorities in the Bush Administration that stood up to lies about WMD’s. It wasn’t the financial regulators whose protest led to greater condemnation of the havoc wrought by Wall Street on our economic system. It isn’t about pleasure, and… Read more »
Zek, Please take your own advice. You write: “Perhaps you should ask them how they feel? I mean, instead of projecting an assumption onto them.” Then follow this up with: “But I can’t help recognizing the irony that people want to restrain calls for justice in certain cases and not for others, and that these trends seem to follow along lines of race, class, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and nationality.” How you read Brandon’s piece to restrain calls for justice only in certain cases is beyond me. He is asking for genuine restraint. This is far from uncommon.… Read more »
Mike, I should have assumed you’d fail to see the difference between my two statements =/ One is about a person’s INTENTIONS, about their FEELINGS. The second is about their ACTIONS, their STATEMENTS. The former can only be guessed at without asking. The latter are obvious. But notice I didn’t say Brandon was doing that here, just that I was pointing it out as an unfortunate trend. You’re always quick on the trigger Mike, but your aim is off. Meanwhile, please consider lecturing yourself about your own problems listening to other people (as you’ve done on TGMP repeatedly) before attempting… Read more »
Zek, Always with the personal attacks. If you were clear in the first place, they wouldn’t be necessary. Zek, you claimed ” that people want to restrain calls for justice in certain cases and not for others.” This is clearly a general statement with no qualifiers that is meant to refer to all calls for restraint in general. You don’t point out certain groups or cases, but just refer to “people” in aggregate. As Brandon was calling for restraint, your meaning was fairly obvious. At best your previous comment was very poorly worded. At worst you are trying to talk… Read more »
Mike,
If making critical comments about erroneous actions is a personal attack, I daresay you may not fully comprehend the meaning of the phrase…
But trying to distort my comments in order to make it seem as if I said something I point-blank did not in order to deflect real criticism about the way justice is accorded is pretty telling in of itself. Of course, you’ve done that to me and others quite a lot, so I shouldn’t be surprised. Nonetheless, I’ll continue asking for you to please stop doing it.
Zek,
I literally quoted you word-for-word. It’s not a distortion when it’s a quote.
You also keep referencing events that never happened. That’s what makes it a personal attack.
But it doesn’t matter, all I did was quote you, and it will be clear to everyone else here.
Mike, Hahaha, oh man, you really don’t see it? Okay, let me explain. Yes, you quoted me, and then said what I wrote meant this: “This is clearly a general statement with no qualifiers that is meant to refer to all calls for restraint in general. You don’t point out certain groups or cases, but just refer to “people” in aggregate. As Brandon was calling for restraint, your meaning was fairly obvious.” Yet you seem to have failed to include the entire statement, so let me paste the whole thing: “But I can’t help recognizing the irony that people want… Read more »
P.S.
You said, You also keep referencing events that never happened. That’s what makes it a personal attack.
Actually I’m referencing things that have happened and do happen. I’ve called you out on your actions numerous times at TGMP and the comments are there in public for anyone to see. So pretending they didn’t happen is pretty dishonest.
Just in case my last comments get stuck in moderation, let me reiterate for you Mike, I literally quoted you word-for-word. It’s not a distortion when it’s a quote. You did not properly quote me. I said this, “That’s not my argument, nor would I make such an argument. But I can’t help recognizing the irony that people want to restrain calls for justice in certain cases and not for others, and that these trends seem to follow along lines of race, class, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and nationality.” You only quoted one small phrase of that, out… Read more »
Zek,
No one is fooled. Have a good day.
You don’t see how claiming that people who see a six-year sentence for murder as being too light as demanding ‘revenge’ could be see in that light? Even given that the people in question are upper-class kids from en elite college?
Soullite, You need to look at the intention of the people involved. If the “upper-class kids from an elite college” only want clemency for others who are similarly situated, then fine, you could see it in that light. But groups that work for clemency usually do so generally. Six years for a killing that was clearly accidental is probably more than enough, especially given the life-long burden that a felony conviction entails. This would be true regardless of who was at fault and what their situation was. There is an attempt to defeat the argument that criminal penalties are too… Read more »
Thank you very much for writing this. I would also point out that in our society even offenses that seem to have “short jail sentences” usually entail lifelong punishment. Convicted felons face barriers to getting jobs, getting school loans, and even securing housing (think rental or mortgage applications). Many felonies do carry life long punishments, such as sex offenses that require the registration with the database and the attendant public shaming from having your photo and address available online for all to see. Often a person can have their right to vote stripped, and in many jurisdictions someone with a… Read more »