Category: Justice

Are we often the first ones to apologize to the person who was hurt? “Forgiveness means letting go of anger and the desire for revenge and moving toward an increasingly positive view of and acceptance of the party that harmed oneself or the people one cares about” (Coleman) When the offender directly addresses the victim, the latter may also, for fear of rejecting all the offers of the offender. This is where a neutral mediator is needed, which organizes the process, where the victim can free himself from negative feelings, and the accused needs to formulate a proposal to correct the harm. The mediator does not take the side of the accused or the victim and promotes the possibility of an agreement between the parties, which helps to establish trust and creates a favorable atmosphere for reconciliation. The experience of the first conciliation programs showed the crucial importance of such work. The expression of feelings, an informal dialogue, and the receipt of answers to one’s own questions contributed significantly to the change in the attitudes of the participants towards each other, towards themselves and the situation.

The most important stage was the development of restorative justice chain set out most of all, in the works of Howard Zehr. Basic to us became the concept of “needs of victims of crime”, opposed to criminal justice and legal thinking; the concept of “offender liability”; goals of restorative justice programs. Painful experiences: fear, grief, defenselessness, distrust of people, self-accusation – can disturb a victim for many years. For some victims of crime, the opportunity to share a personal story and get answers to questions directly from offenders is very important. Victims most often do not know about the fate of their abuser, since they do not always attend court hearings because of their reluctance to experience additional experiences. Places of imprisonment significantly affect the exclusion of offenders from a law-abiding society. The toughening of punishments, uniting an increasing number of offenders in colonies and prisons, contributes to the reproduction of the criminal subculture. The more the population goes through places of deprivation of liberty, the more it contributes to the spread of tolerance for criminal behavior, increased hostility towards law enforcement officials and courts, consolidation of the population’s orientation towards criminal authorities as patterns of behavior, as well as violent conflict resolution and aggressiveness in relationships as a norm of behavior.

The restorative approach interprets the concept of responsibility differently than official justice. The responsibility of the offender in restorative justice includes awareness of the consequences of harm, defining a strategy for future life that would exclude criminal methods of solution, and commitment to redress harm to the victim. “Understanding the conditions that lead to violence and the impact of violence can provide a useful framework for people to work on both prevention and reconciliation. It can lead them to resist these influences, to respond to them in ways that makes violence less likely” (Coleman) The use of a restorative approach is necessary when interpersonal relations are saturated with hatred and revenge, which interrupts the possibility of a normal human life. The reconstructive resolution of conflicts and criminal situations helps people to fix the evil caused by conflicts and crimes themselves. A restorative approach to resolving conflicts and criminal situations with the help of mediators helps to realize important values for society: healing of victims of crime, smoothing out harm by the forces of offenders, and participation in this process of the immediate social environment.

Acts of violence are like germs that carry infection directly into the brain. Especially vulnerable are children and adolescents whose psyche is extremely plastic. If you regularly undergo or witness acts of violence, then this inevitably affects the neurological function of the body. After this, the transformation of personality is manifested in a specific perception of the world through a filter in which violence is considered normal behavior, and the threat of violence is seen everywhere. People in this state tend to resort to violence. Some American scientists including Gary Slutkin seriously believe that violence can spread in human society in much the same way as infectious diseases. ‘Infection’ spreads through phenomena such as fights, murders, suicides, and rapes” (Schwartz) Each of interrupters came to Cease Fire, having connections and authority in the criminal world, knowledge of street laws and the ability to recognize situations fraught with escalation of violence. Even speaking the same language, the activists had the task of advising those who did not even ask for it. They should be able to knock on the doors of the hearts of people seeking revenge, be able to listen and know when to let the interlocutor “let off steam”, when and how to start talking. They needed courage to intervene in dangerous situations and confront violent criminals. It needed loyalty to the idea, and commitment to stop the violence. To start these processes, the mediators like Ameena Matthews and Ricardo “Cobe” Williams carry out work on “humanizing” of relationships.

A conflict or a criminal situation often leads to the fact that people begin to see exclusively negative sides in each other, and a sense of fear, hatred or anger increases. A mediator helps people to express the completeness of the situation in which they fallen due to conflict or criminal actions and convey it to each other. Such mutual understanding allows us them to clarify previously hidden aspects of human existence, which allows them to overcome the depersonalization and demonization of another and, thereby, find the strength to discuss a joint solution to this problem. Awareness of one’s feelings, states and foundations of action, awareness of the situational consequences for themselves and other people, awareness of the priorities and problems in relationships, acceptance of responsibility for changing the situation, joint search for a solution and its implementation, restorative actions that allow correcting the consequences of the situation and changing the attitudes towards each other are the most important steps on the path of rebirth.

We are responsible for the occurrence of this conflict, even though another made a fuss. Recognizing our mistakes and unselfish motives, we begin to realize how our behavior affects other people. Avoiding destructive behavior ourselves, in the future we will not encourage others to hurt us. We protect ourselves from mistakes. Protecting ourselves we protect others. It is not necessary at the same time to remember those actions that could have been committed in past and which led us to real problems. But we must seriously and finally decide for ourselves not to take such actions in the future. If you think about everything constructively, then you can learn from mistakes, instead of becoming a victim of your own false ideas.

If mercy requires a departure from strict justice, it is calling for injustice, a vice; if mercy never requires a departure from strict justice, it is then merely a part of justice , The purpose of this paper is to analyse charges on mercy.

Murphy describes mercy as “As a moral virtue, mercy derives its value at least in part from the fact that it flows from a certain state of character – a character disposed to perform merciful acts from love or compassion while not losing sight of the importance of justice.”

It is a principle of justice that a judge has a prima-facie duty to be dispassionate ,to avoid being influenced by feelings they might have towards the litigants before them. A judge motivated by justice alone will therefore tend to set aside feelings of compassion.Mercy and justice, considered as states of character, are thus quite distinct.

A sense of empathy could let a judge know what sort of suffering particular penalty will cause to that convict. But empathy for the suffering of another is compassion and compassion .when it motivates its subject to leniency, is mercy

Merely being merciful as judge will have just a tangent touched to the projectile motion of justice, and for sure we aren’t expecting mercy or justice . A judgment which is just, fair and reasonable

Justice not always mean like Aristotle’s paradigm of friendship. Where one of the friend in name of justice ask for the gift which he receives must be equivalent to the gift he gave. It is thus at least conceivable that mercy may function like that .

Before coming to the main question. Firstly let try to figure out, is the person who is a convict should be allowed for mercy petition?

The answer in one word is “YES”, to what extend is supplementary question . In India the capital punishment is awarded to a person who’s act is not only an offence which is covered in the law but also rarest of rare in nature . For instances , in case of Nirbhaya 2012 , ever since beginning all the accused were guilty of an offence which was rarest of rare in India that point of time . As a result from trail court to the supreme court the judgement was never changed or even altered. Should those convict’s mercy plea be entertained and is the president a correct authority for all kind of mercy plea?

Rachels principle guarantee is that the hypothesis of social relativism has genuine shortages, though a portion of the premises it depends on are substantial. In Rachels word, it is “not [as] plausible as it appears to be.”(57) One of the primary premises that social relativism remains on is that “different cultures have different moral codes.”(54) Rachels demonstrates this is valid by utilizing a few cases of social practices that vary considerably from our own, remembering marriage for Eskimo people group. Eskimos accept that spouses can have various wives, and that ladies are permitted to break the marriage game plan whenever and locate another accomplice. This exactly what is happening with the Bajesan, because every culture has a different moral code. It shows that nation card people don’t like any outside to get in their culture there are multiple reason why this happens maybe they don’t want to share their space, or it doesn’t fit in their culture. This goes back to what Rachel said that our religion and culture are not so extraordinary as they seem, by all accounts, to be. He contends that we overestimate and dramatize the varieties among cultures. Actually, all cultures share some basic beliefs for all intents and purpose that are important to support human progress. One of these qualities, as indicated by Rachels, is to put high an incentive on their kids and newborn children. It is unthinkable for these people to think about themselves, and without them society would in the end cease to exist.

While looking at the case it states that nation card is banning Bajesans, the only reason why they are banning them is because Bajesans are outsiders and they have different religion, so they are wrong, that’s all because of Social relativism. Social relativism, which follows from the first, is that we can’t unbiasedly pass judgment on any one society’s ethical code to be better than the ethical code of another general public. Rachels state this as “Cultural Difference Argument.”(58) He asserts that it is absurd to presume that there is no ‘goal truth’ in profound quality essentially in light of the fact that individuals in various social orders differ on what is good. It is completely conceivable that the gatherings being referred to are just mixed up, in any case. The issue with the Social Differences Argument is that the end doesn’t follow from the reason. Rachels’ investigation of the results of the acknowledgment of social relativism offers more help for his case that the hypothesis is imperfect. He expresses that, as a matter of first importance, we could never again contend that our traditions are ethically better than those of different societies. We would need to acknowledge that different social orders are ‘different’ (59) and that these distinctions don’t make them substandard. Another outcome would be that we could look to the benchmarks of our general public to decide if our activities are correct or wrong. This is hazardous in light of the fact that we might be under the feeling that specific parts of our general public’s ethical code are imperfect at the same time, as indicated by social relativism, we can’t scrutinize them. The third and last outcome of tolerating social relativism is that ‘moral progress’ is faulty (60). At the end of the day, social change could occur just in an exceptionally constrained limit. The model Rachels gives is that ladies held a choked job in Western culture for the vast majority of history, and as of late were freed from that position. Be that as it may, social relativism would not permit us to consider this ‘progress’ at all since we can’t decide whether any better approach for showing improvement over the old method for getting things done.

When we look at the case and the letter that was written by Martin Luther king, they are fairly similar. The letter particularly attempts to be centered around the topics identified with the isolation of the Afro-American populace taking basic focuses, for example, the periods of the not rough activity, the need of the tranquil incitement, the reaction to the allegations of radicalism, the Church’s disposition toward social shameful acts. This goes hand in hand with the “outsiders” because Afro-American was looked down, they were treated wrong just like nation of Card is doing with Bajes. Martin Luther King utilized Jr. writing loaded with rationale and amazingly ground-breaking guides to pass on a fundamental message that foul play will fail if the individuals who battle for equity are eager to languish over safeguarding it. He sets a model that equity is just to assist a few, and when it comes over a minority individual there is no equity. Their contentions are at a similar scholastic level, social and strict that most of their adversaries. It is because of the low or zero reaction from the specialists and the network all in all that the Civil Rights Movement chooses to dispatch a crusade of direct activity, which it depended on executing various types of serene exhibition, for example, monetary blacklist, and demonstrations in those foundations in which segregationist activities were held against the Afro-American. These types of articulation planned to make a condition of strain without resort to brutality. For Martin Luther King, the arrangement is certainly the key idea of serene common obstruction and to arrive at this spot, it is fundamental if all else fails the immediate activity. In Birmingham, the monetary blacklist against brokers reacted to the utilization of the last plan of action utilized by Martin Luther King to battle against racial signs that were shown by the white network in their foundations. In spite of isolation was denied the truth under the represents African Americans was totally different. This sort of social separation was totally disguised in the white network; showed in every conceivable structure and types inside the day by day lives of Americans’ southern towns.

In Sanatan Dharma, each individual creation needs to function as per their characteristics (the basic properties given by the creator) and code of conduct. For example – fire should burn and give heat to function- according to its dharma, and water in rivers needs to flow into the oceans. Dharma upholds the created universe, supports it and sustains it, without which the universe just falls apart. The reverse of dharma is adharma – when the fire stops burning and rivers stop flowing, they are doing the opposite of what it is expected to do and it can result in the extinction of the Universal creations.

The same applies to humans, more than ever, at the time when they have to handle difficult ethical dilemmas of life? Many of us want to know which aspect of our psychology and personality holds the best answers to certain difficult ethical situations? Traditionally it is said that when we try to find the answer to a difficult question, the response of our body can tell if our answer was correct or not. When the answer is ethically correct, the body and mind feels relaxed as the subtle layers of the inner consciousness know that our decision was righteous.

“Righteousness constitutes of 5 pillars: Knowledge, Patience, Justice, Love and Dedication, and the foundation of Righteousness is Compassion.” ~ Lord Krishna (Mahabharata)

Righteousness and attaining the state of Oneness with the One

Humans are nature’s creations and they need to follow their dharma of leading a life as it comes, without hurting the surrounding environment (Prakriti) or other creations on earth. Our accomplishments are linked with the knowledge of Truth. Just as food enables the body’s growth and development, knowledge of the truth facilitates the growth and evolution of mind, the intellect, and the knowledge of the Self. The development of the knowledge of the Self to its fullest extent means acquiring knowledge of the fundamental nature of the Self that leads to the state of absoluteness or the state of Oneness with the One.

ABOUT THE FIVE PILLARS OF DHARMA

In Mahabharata, when Draupadi married the five brothers – Pandavas, she had many doubts about the relationship. Lord Krishna gave her five pieces of rocks as a gift stating “Look at the rocks whenever in doubt. The five rocks are the five pillars of dharma-knowledge, patience, love, dedication and justice. The five pillars stand on compassion (karuna).”

Lord Krishna explains how knowledge can help to differentiate between right and wrong. Patience stabilizes the mind and helps in enhancing intelligence. If you have love in a relationship, it is stabilized at heart. Dedication towards each other is required in such a relationship to control the senses and justice gives stability to the inner soul.

KNOWLEDGE

When God created various creatures in this world, He assigned certain different characteristics to all. The balance of the creation is maintained when specified creation exhibits their specified properties assigned by God. All the inert items like fire or water are strictly following the will of God. God has full freedom to change any characteristic / property of any of his creation. If the limits are violated by the creation and the behaviour of some other creature like animals’ behavior is adopted by humans, the soul is punished and pushed into the life cycle of animals. Such animal lives in the forest and can have its characteristic behaviour which does not upset the balance of animal kingdom in the forest. But when a human being lives in the society of human beings and behaves like an animal, the society is disturbed.

MEANING OF DHARMA

In general, in a society, Dharma sustains and maintains the social, moral, political and economic order. Dharma has its legal, moral and social shades of meanings which are developed during the traditional and historical development. The word ‘Dharma’ has its root ‘dhr” meaning ‘to uphold’, ‘to support’, and ‘to sustain’.

‘Dharma’ has a wide variety of meanings. For instance, it is used to mean justice, what is right in a given circumstance, moral values of life, pious obligations of individuals, righteous conduct in every sphere of activity like being helpful to other living beings, giving charity to individuals in need or for a public cause, or alms to the needy. There are certain natural qualities or characteristics or properties of living beings like duty towards society / people or law.

BASIC GUIDELINES FOR SANATAN DHARMA

• Eventually every soul goes back to the kingdom of God.
• The soul is eternal, and it has existed (reincarnation) multiple times, it means we exist now, we were there before this body, and we will continue to live after this body.
• The Vedic eternal knowledge contains over 800,000+ verses compiled by God Himself.
• The Vedic texts explain the rule of “Justice for all living beings via the infallible Law of Karma.”
• One should follow the concept of universal brotherhood as all living beings are brothers and sisters – they come from the same source.
• To concentrate on the energies of the Universal Source of energy, one can chant mantras to focus on it to be able to identify it within, that ultimately leads to the state of attaining Oneness with Him.
• He appears in many different/parallel universes to perform His transcendental acts.
• He is Omniscient (knows the past, present and the future) and all His scheduled appearances and His complete description is given in the Vedic scriptures.
• The material cosmic creation is cyclic. There are repeated cycles of creations and annihilations.

LOVE

Our physical presence is a field and it makes use of everything that is material in nature: the five elements- ego (sense of self, understanding, the five senses and the objects of the senses where love and care resolve clashes as it soothes the heart and lowers psychological pains.

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUL?

• The soul is eternal.
• It cannot be destroyed by any weapon, burned, blown, or moistened.
• It is neither male nor female.
• It is neither black nor white.
• It does not belong to any place. It can be born in Europe in one birth and Asia in the next.
• It has no religion.
• It cannot be cut/divided or diseased.
• It is neither richer nor poorer than another.
• It is neither old nor young.
• It has no weight, and it cannot be seen with the naked eye.
• It is situated in the heart of all living beings.
• The size of the soul is 1/10,000th of the tip of the hair.
• All souls are equal; one soul is neither inferior nor superior to another.
• Every soul is part of the Supreme and hence, a knowledgeable person can identify that the other person is also a part of the Supreme Self and they have compassion and love for all.
• When the inner Self (consciousness) finds it difficult to stay or act in the body (the vehicle that holds the Self) with love – it leads to death.

JUSTICE

Humans have limited vision and scope of understanding to know and determine what is right or wrong. A human can look into 4 dimensions to find answers but the Supreme soul can look into all the 64 dimensions beyond time and space, to determine the intention of the inner soul of a person. Since the vision and abilities of humans are limited they need to get in sync with the Supreme Self to get guidance about what is right or wrong. Some of the best judgments are given at the time when a person is connected to the inner Self – intuition as God is the greatest, beyond all dharma and His justice prevails everywhere.

PATIENCE

Patience calms the mind and lowers stress. A person can concentrate and think clearly only when they are not impatient. The soul can adopt different paths to attain the state of liberation like meditation (dhyana), the path of knowledge (Samkhya-yoga) or the path of work (karma-yoga). Others, ignorant of these yogas, achieve salvation through worship or devotion.

In Bhagvat Gita, Krishna reminds Arjuna that all actions are done by Prakriti, the Individual Self is only the passive observer of the field of action. If you are impatient, you will find it difficult to clear the debts of karma, and you may indulge in more negative karma by acting impatiently.

DEDICATION

‘The path of devotion is – surrender of the ego, the ‘I’, to ‘you’ (God), combining this ‘I’ with ‘you’ one attains supreme bliss and gets complete satiation for the desire of love’.

There is no discrimination between God and devotee because when one realises God the tendencies are also converted like the Supreme Self. Therefore the result of devotion is devotion only.

In the story of Mahabharata, Arjuna killed his grandfather Bhishma during the war of Mahabharatha but he was directed by Lord Krishna to do so. In such case, even though he killed a human, he was permanently associated with Lord Krishna ( the story of Nar and Narayana) and he was doing justice – Dharma.

MANTRA

• There are millions of species (bodies form) that the soul can occupy. [All these verses were written in the Vedic scriptures more than 5000 years ago.]
• ‘jalaja nava lakshani, sthavara laksha-vimshati, krimayo rudra-sankhyakah, pakshinam dasha-lakshanam, trinshal-lakshani pashavah, chatur lakshani manavah’ (Padma Purana)

1. Jalaja (Water-based life forms) – 0.9 million
2. Sthavara (Immobile implying plants and trees) – 2.0 million
3. Krimayo (Reptiles) – 1.1 million
4. Pakshinam (Birds) – 1.0 million
5. Pashavah (animals) – 3.0 million
6. Manavah (human-like) – 0.4 million

• Hence, there are a total of 8.4 million species of living beings. A soul occupies a particular body, exactly based on its desires, karma and inclinations.
• || Tatprem tatva madhurya yato gyaneapi vismratih | Dhanya dhanyamanirdashya manyanmanyamahe vayam || – Narada Bhakti 23rd Sutra
• The two elements love and melody (madhurya) are there in devotion or Bhakti. Gyan (Knowledge) and forgetfulness both are there, these are the two distinct elements that are present in Bhakti.

SUMMARY

Knowledge of the Truth is an integral part of Dharma. It is an essential principle without which Dharma cannot remain intact. Hence Dharma is not merely a religious practice or depiction of some emotion; it is a sacred code of conduct. Knowledge soothes the Intellect, Patience soothes the mind, Love soothes the heart, Dedication soothes the physical body, and Justice soothes the soul. When all the 5 pillars resonate in harmony, man’s being is engulfed in pure compassion (Karuna). This, according to Lord Krishna, is the true Dharma.

As long as you are not disturbing the balance of society, God does not distinguish the good and bad qualities applied in the path of the spiritual journey. If somebody believes in dharma, they need to follow God’s guidelines, rules and restrictions. In the end, all dharma and adharma are determined by the Supreme Self – the inner self and the ultimate justice is given by Him.

CONCLUSION

The foundation of Righteousness is Compassion. According to Lord Krishna, true and pure Compassion is not obtained unless the 5 pillars of Righteousness are in complete harmony with one another. Dharma is called Pravriti which is the expected behaviour of the human being with the co-human beings to maintain the balance of humanity.

Humans should behave in the manner as per the guidelines given by the five pillars of dharma. If humans are not behaving as per the terms of their individual Dharma, they are doing adharma – opposite of dharma. In such case, their preference for lower acts can bring their soul into the body of human low-living creature, in the next birth. Only humans can understand the knowledge of dharma and spirituality. Humans can adopt spiritual methods to attain the state of Oneness with the One where they develop the perspective and preference to think / become like the Supreme Self. As they become like Him, they try their best to conduct their dharma and preserve and help in growth of the Godly creations.

The common module gives an understanding of the human experience through collective and individual experiences. Through various modes of storytelling, texts have the ability to explore timeless issues which have always been faced by humanity, whilst illustrating lone perspectives of the individual characters. The universal themes portrayed in the texts are enhanced by the specific experiences of the characters, allowing for a more engaging representation of such issues. As the audience, we still seem to relate to the emotions evoked or the issues explored in these texts, despite it not being entirely reflective of our own lives. The Shakespearean play, The Merchant of Venice, and Langston Hughes’ poem, Justice, both successfully reflect the individual and collective human experience through their use of various literary techniques and their exploration of the theme, Justice vs Mercy.

Shakespeare employs the use of various literary devices to explore the theme of Justice vs Mercy throughout The Merchant of Venice. Justice is the idea called for when someone feels as though they have been treated unfairly. Mercy on the other hand, is the gift of forgiveness, which is not truly given easily. The main antagonist, Shylock, demands justice but is asked to give mercy. In Scene 1 of Act 4, Shakespeare utilises disguise to sneak Portia into the courtroom, where she dresses up as a lawyer in an attempt to defend Antonio in the hearing about the bond. Portia begins by stating that mercy just occurs, without the need of showing it, it is just there. In an attempt to persuade Shylock to show mercy to Antonio, she says “It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes,” which implies that mercy blesses the person who gives it and the person that receives it. Shakespeare personifies mercy to something which resembles God, as the person who shows mercy achieves Godly powers and that it holds greater value than the King’s crown and sceptre. Portia concludes by stating “Tis mightiest in the mightiest,” indicating that only the strongest of people can achieve mercy. Although Shylock initially seemed to seek justice, he failed to show mercy mixed with the justice he spoke of. The idea that justice cannot be given without mercy is influential to the justicial system of the Venetian society, as the decisions that were made were not always fair to the individual experience, however, may have been fair to the collective experience.

Hughes also uses various techniques to convey the individual and collective experiences of Justice vs Mercy throughout the poem. In contrast to The Merchant of Venice, Justice explores the bias of the justicial system towards African Americans, through poetry. Hughes employs the use of metaphor and rhyme to create a calm anger tone, which highlights the unfair nature of justice. The use of metaphor in “Justice is a blind goddess,” represents justice as the legal system, which doesn’t see any particular person. This disregards the individual experience, instead, providing a shared and collective human experience between African Americans. Hughes employs the use of rhyme for wise and eyes in “Is a thing to which we black are wise … That once perhaps were eyes.” This creates a link between the treatment of the African American community within the law and the information which is being revealed. The justice eyes are hidden by bandages to hide the truth which lies beneath. Although the speaker’s tone does not change throughout the poem, as there aren’t any exclamation marks which could symbolise anger, we can assume that they are calmly speaking with an attitude which despises the treatment of African American people by the justicial system. The quotes “Justice is a blind goddess,” and “Her bandage hides two festering sores,” symbolise the secretive nature of the law and court system. Through looking underneath the bandages, the truth will be found. Contrary to The Merchant of Venice, the poem deals with justice, not mercy. This indicates that anger overrules the ability to forgive, thus, the character is unable to be merciful as they are still full of anger.

Although the texts vary in form, vary in historical context, and have varying ideas of Justice vs Mercy, both texts successfully communicate and represent the individual and collective human experiences through their use of various literary techniques.

Shakespeare has captured the attention of the world creating his new words and developing characteristics in characters relationships that are still seen in the 21st century. His personal views on justice and mercy are implicitly and explicitly shown through characters and their relationships. The Merchant of Venice; one of Shakespeare’s most famous articles of work has many examples of justice and mercy throughout. One of the most prominent issues in William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, is the balance between justice and mercy. The occurrence of justice and mercy shown throughout the supporting and lead characters is shown in several forms and is a predominant theme. Not only was justice and mercy a protuberant issue in the 1600’s venetian era but it is also very much a prominent problem in the 20th century.

Mercy is the act of treating a person compassionately and justly even if they have done something wrong by you. Mercy is very hard to give as it takes extreme resilience and forgiveness to reflect it upon someone else.

The first most prominent example of mercy in the play is shown when Launcelot asks his father Gobbo who is blind for forgiveness. Launcelot his son, takes his father’s ailment to his advantage misleads his father after seeing him in the street. He gives him wrong directions to his house and then later tries to convince him that he is dead. Gobbo being blind does not exactly know who is speaking to him which is why he was easily fooled. As can be imagined this causes Gobbo some torment which Launcelot immediately sees. Launcelot bends down to his hands and knees and utters, “Give me your blessings…” (Shakespeare 82). This shows a certain courage and resiliency from Launcelot to confess his wrongdoing. Gobbo shows mercy to his seemingly foolish son by restoring there undoubtedly tightknit and loving relationship as father’s and son’s do. He shows this by helping Launcelot to get a job working for Bassanio.

Although The Merchant of Venice is only a play it’s morals are very much true to the real world. The concept of mercy has not changed from 400 years ago. Mercy is pleaded for in court cases where the worst are being heard, when people are being terrorised in terror attacks, when lives are at stake and yet the worst of the worst show the slightest of mercy no matter how psychotic they are. Mercy is not just an action, but it is a part of human nature.

Mercy is closely tied in with justice especially in the context of the modern-day legal system. Justice can seem quite unfair at times especially in Act 1: Scene 2 where Portia is locked by a sense of justice in the form of a rule. Before Portia’s father had died, he set out a rule that she could strictly only marry a man that could pick the right casket. Although her father is dead, she cannot disobey his ruling. Not only can she not have choice in who she marries but anyone that does take the test and fails may not marry her for the rest of their life.

The most incontestable example of justice within The Merchant of Venice is one of the most fascinating scenes out all of William Shakespeare’s greatest works. As this scene unfolds, we become engrossed in the plot where the sly and cunning Shlock demands his own form of a cruel justice; he requests that if Antonio does not pay his loan back, he may cut off one pound of his flesh. This unquestionably is one of the more extreme cases of obtaining justice. Shylock does not accept a plea of mercy from Antonio. An explicit statement of this from Act 4: Scene 1 is, “(Shylock is) uncapable of pity, void and empty from any dram of mercy,” which explains Shylocks negative determination towards Antonio. Shylock becomes so set in his ways that he shows no leniency to be merciful. This isn’t any different to the 21st century.

Many people become fixated on bringing others to their full justice and don’t think about showing mercy. Justice is not always negative it can bring a sense of relief to families and community’s especially when people have died at the hands of others.

Racial Injustice and Segregation has a long history in America, which dates back to the 17th century. Many historical events have stemmed from Racial injustice throughout America. Certain factors can be seen as influential in causing problems between races, including Religion. Religion can be seen to play a role in the creating and furthering racial problems throughout the history, this can be shown throughout historical events such as slavery and segregation; religion can also be seen as playing a role in trying to fight racial injustice by causing the Civil Rights movement.

Slavery itself had caused a major divide between races, but what most people might not know is how slave religion played a big role in creating this divide. Slavery started in 1916 when the first group of slaves arrived in Jamestown. Due to Triangular Trade, the America’s received slaves from Africa. English common law had considered Africans as foreigners, and they were used to the colonist’s economic benefits.

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.” (Ephesians 6:5-8)

Due to this bible verse, as well as others, that somewhat justify slavery, the colonist believed they were doing nothing wrong and just following God’s words.

Not only did slavery itself create this divide but slave religion had deepened this divide. Slaves had still maintained their religions and traditions, despite efforts to restrict them from doing so. Slaves adapted what is known as the “Invisible Institution”, where they would meet in private to worship without the slave master’s knowledge of it.

“The religion of the slaves was both institutional and noninstitutional, visible and invisible, formally organized and spontaneously adapted. Regular Sunday worship in the local church was paralleled by illicit, or at least informal, prayer meetings on weeknights in the slave cabins. Preachers licensed by the church and hired by the master were supplemented by slave preachers licensed only by the spirit. Texts from the Bible which most slaves could not read were explicated by verses from the spirituals. Slaves forbidden by masters to attend church or, in some cases, even to pray risked floggings to attend secret gatherings to worship God.”

The Invisible Institution became a way for slaves to protect their freedom and religion, and to forget the suffering they are enduring; which was very important to them and they did so knowing they are risking possible punishment from slave masters. This physically separates the races by establishing two separate church systems.

Not only did slave masters, but segregationists also used religion as a way to defend their beliefs and support of the color line. In 1865 through 1869, three amendments, amendments 13-15, were made to the Constitution in order to establish Civil Rights. These amendments abolish slavery, established due process and protects the rights of all citizen being able to vote despite race. Although this had legally put a stop to slavery and this color-line, this did not stop segregation as a whole. In the 1870’s states had put “Jim Crow laws” in act, these were laws that had taken away these civil rights and enforced segregation, mainly in the southern states. Many segregationists had believed that this divide was justified by God and were by no means ready or trying to get rid of it. ‘God created and established the color line in races, and evidently meant for it to remain. Therefore, we have no right to try and eradicate it.” Segregationists viewed racial injustice as justifiable by god, and that this was Gods intentions so why should it be changed. Religion and its interpretation is what caused segregationist to have such a strong position in the matter of the division between races, due to belief that they are simply obeying God’s words.

Although religion plays a role in separating religion it also played a role in the attempts to bring them together. Well known Civil Rights activists, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X, used religion to guide their actions in this movement.

“Kelsey’s theology was clearly manifested in another assessment of King. The civil rights leader ‘took very seriously the Christian doctrine of cre- ation,’ which ‘meant that every person is created in the image of God and love is the fundamental law of life.’ Racism and segregation violated these principles, and King and other religious activists, on those grounds, opposed these pernicious ideologies.”

Religion is what drove Martin Luther King to fight for Civil Rights for all races, his belief of God creating everyone as equals is why he decided to take a stand. Without MLK’s religious beliefs influencing his thoughts on segregation, he might have never fought for Civil Rights and caused the change in America that he is recognized for.

Malcom X is another Civil rights activist who used religion as a way to spread his message and bring unison into the black community to fight for Civil Rights.

“Keep it between you and your God. Because if it hasn’t done anything more for you than it has, you need to forget it anyway. Whether you are a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Nationa- list, we all have the same problem. They don’t hang you because you’re a Baptist; they hang you ’cause you’re black. They don’t attack me because I’m a Muslim; they attack me ’cause I’m black.”

Malcom X uses religion in his fight for Civil Rights, but in a different aspect. Religion is being referenced as something that should be kept personal due to diminish furthering problems. This quote is an example of Malcom X trying to unite the Black community by showing that the problem isn’t their religions, nor should it be a factor, but that it is the treatment they get in comparison to other races. He is trying to get the message through to everyone that this is purely a race problem and they should not let religion deepen this divide between races. The Civil Rights movement is what truly led to changes in America, and without religion being used to inspire the movement or spread the message America might have never changed and Civil Rights might have never been obtained.

The divided between races in American History has been a major conflict for centuries. Religion played a role in fueling this division and causing historical events, such as Slavery and Segregation. Slave Religion had physically separated the races by establishing separate churches and institutions, segregationist’s interpretation of religion caused them to maintain a strong position of support against uniting the country and races. Religion did not just deepen the division between races, but was used in attempts to bring them together, such as the Civil Rights Movement. Well known civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X, used religion as inspiration to fight for civil rights and as a way to spread the message and meaning of this movement. Overall, religion played a big role in the notions of race which most people are not aware of.

Roman Jurist, Domitius Ulpian, once said, “Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due” (Ulpian). As Ulpian explains, humans seek justice by placing blame on those who have sinned, and forcing them to face their necessary punishment. “Serial”, an investigative journalism podcast hosted by Sarah Koenig, “Inferno”, a mystery thriller novel by Dante Alighieri, and “Shawshank Redemption”, a drama based film on Stephen King’s story, all explore the meaning of justice and how people pursue it. The protagonists and antagonists of the aforementioned texts and media share a common desire to seek justice for themselves and others. By seeking redemption, either by punishing those who have sinned or confessing their own sin, the characters’ are simultaneously liberated.

Sarah Koenig’s podcast, “Serial”, explores the murder of 18-year-old Hae Min Lee, a student at Woodlawn High. Lee’s ex-boyfriend, Adnan Masud Syed, was charged with her murder and sentenced to life in prison after an anonymous source reported that he might be guilty. Koenig explores the theme of justice through Hae Min Lee’s family, who sought justice for their daughter by placing the blame on an individual. Hae’s mother says, “I don’t know where to hear her voice, I don’t know where to touch her hand. I would like to forgive Adnan Syed but as of now, I just don’t know how to do that and I just cannot do that right now” (Koenig “To Be Suspected”). Hae’s mother places the blame for her daughter’s murder on Adnan. Hae’s family was able to feel some closure after Adnan’s arrest because they had someone to blame for her cold blooded murder. They ultimately felt that with Adnan behind bars, their daughter was brought to justice. While Adnan was still found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, “he says he’s got a clear conscience, because he didn’t kill Hae…” (Koenig “To Be Suspected”). Adnan empathizes with Hae’s mother and wants her to find the justice that Hae deserves, but he does not carry a guilty conscious because he knows that he is innocent. His definition of justice is manifested very differently than Hae’s mother, who wants simply to blame someone for her daughter’s murder.

The theme of justice is also seen in “Shawshank Redemption,” a story written by Stephen King and directed by Frank Darabont. In his film, Darabont depicts the story of Andy Dufresne, an innocent man who was wrongfully convicted of the murders of his wife and her lover. The judge in Darabont’s film seeks justice for the murdered victims by sentencing Andy “to serve two life sentences, back to back, one for each of [his] victims” because Andy strikes him “as a particularly icy and remorseless man,” (King). Based on the evidence presented before him and his gut-feeling about Andy’s presence, the judge felt that he was able to bring justice to the murdered victims. Unlike Adnan, who believes he was in prison “because of [his] own stupid actions” (Koenig), Andy beleives that he is “ innocent of this crime” (King). He seeks redemption for his conviction after befriending Tommy, another inmate, who shares that a cellmate from another prison claimed responsibility for the murders of Andy’s wife and her lover. Before Tommy can assist Andy in his redemption, however, “troopers dive in all directions as Norton raises the gun and jams it under his chin,” murdering Tommy. While the true murderers were not brought to justice, Andy managed to redeem himself by escaping the prison.

Finally, Dante’s “Inferno” is a poem that illustrates the manifestation of justice through the various punishments assigned to each sinner. Justice in “Inferno” is not about placing blame or capturing the bad guy, but rather about punishing specific types of sinners. Each sinner in “Inferno” receive the punishment that they deserve. There is a circle for each type of sinner, and their corresponding punishment. Dante writes, “this second circle is the true beginning of Hell and is also where the true punishments of Hell begin. Minos, the mythological king of Crete, sits in judgment of the damned souls” (Cliff Notes). The sinners’ justice is determined by the king of Crete, similar to the judge seen in “Shawshank Redemption”. Justice is ultimately served by punishing the sinners based on the crimes that were committed in life. “Circle II is the circle of carnal lust. The sinners are tossed and whirled by the winds, as in life they felt themselves — helpless in the tempests of passion” (Cliff Notes). The punishment assigned to each sinner ensures that they have learned their lesson.

Justice is a common theme presented in “Serial”, “Shawshank Redemption”, and “Inferno”. While Koenig’s “Serial,” does not have a single defined sinner, Darabont’s “Shawshank Redemption”, and Dante’s “Inferno” depict multiple sinners. In all three of the texts, the characters’ seek justice for a sin that was committed. The justice is manifested differently in each story, and whether or not justice was achieved varies in each circumstance as well. In “Serial”, justice is achieved for Hae Min Lee by placing the blame on an individual. In “Shawshank Redemption” justice was determined by the judge but was ultimately not achieved. Andy finds redemption, however, in his escape from the prison. Finally, justice in “Inferno” is determined by the King of Crete, and is achieved by punishing the sinners for the sins they have committed in life.

Work Cited

1. Darabont, Frank. “ THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION.” ShawShank Redemption, www.dailyscript.com/scripts/shawshank.html.
2. Koenig, Sarah. Complete Transcripts for Serial Podcast Season One. 3 Oct. 2014, www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Serial-Podcast-Transcripts-of-All-Episodes-with-ToC.pdf.
3. ‘The Divine Comedy: Inferno’ CliffsNotes.com. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2019.

Understanding Scotland’s current high imprisonment rates

· Introduction

David Garland has observed that, since the 1970s, an unpredictable shift has been made from penal-welfarism, where the focus was on progress and rehabilitation, to a culture of control, characterised by the re-emergence of punitive sanctions and expressive justice. -add more detail from garland and introduce other authors who have noticed this maybe?

Due to the complex character of penal change, the focus of the essay will be on how political discourse in used in justifying old penal practices and how public opinion can dictate policy.

A criticism of Garland’s explanations of the emergence of a culture of control is the generalisation of causal factors and how it downplays the specifics of each country. As a result, the essay will attempt to illustrate how Scotland’s current policies have been influenced or are aligned with the new penology in order to explain the high imprisonment rates.

In order to achieve this, the paper will first explain the concepts and characteristics of Modern Penality and New Punitiveness by utilising Garland’s observations. This will allow for a better understanding on their differences and will highlight how the transition from one to another happened in a short period of time.

The paper will focus next on the political discourse that has dominated the period from 1970s and how it influenced the public’s perception on crime, more specifically, the war on crime. Further, it will be highlighted the new managerial approach to crime which has led to a privatisation of punishment. The issues with private prisons will briefly be mentioned by making reference to the two private prisons currently in Scotland.

The influence of media and social media will also be highlighted as, with the development of technology, it becomes more and more +accessible and it allows for faster transfer of information. This has also had an impact of how much public perception is taken into consideration when devising policy. This populism approach is a characteristic of the new penology and it emerged as a response to a decline in the belief in science and rationality.

As the essay has addressed the recent changes, it will next look at the purpose of sentencing and the role of criminal justice. It will explore ideas such as rehabilitation, punishment and public protection and how each perception changes the way we address crime through alternatives to imprisonment.

In recent years, due to high levels of violence, Scotland has attempted a public health approach to crime rather than a punitive one. However, in spite of these progressive changes, its imprisonment rates are one of the highest in Europe. The essay will utilise the elements highlighted in the new penology to explain the high levels on incarceration: focus on the needs of the victim (the Victim Notification Scheme and its influence in prisoner’s early release), the ending of automatic release after serving 2/3 of the sentence for long term prisoners, the introduction of the Orders for life-long restrictions, higher minimum tariffs for Life sentences.

Although an actuarial approach to prisoner management has been utilised, due to increased media attention on several high-profile cases, this has been increased. The paper will highlight how media coverage and political discourse have influenced policy which resulted in limiting the number of Home Detention Curfew releases and the number of prisoners progressing to less secure conditions. This caused the number of prisoners in custody to increase leading to prison overcrowding.

To summarise, the essay will attempt to explain the process of penal change by attempting to justify recent changes in Scottish policy and how it affected the current criminal justice system.

• The history of the present
• Modern penalty and New punitiveness
• Neoliberal Political Discourse
• The rise in Victimisation
• The purpose of sentencing and the role of the Criminal Justice
• Alternative sentencing options
• Therapeutic prisons

· Is Scotland facing a prison crisis?

Thirdly, across western jurisdictions, there is a renewed and urgent desire among national governments to re-structure, re-imagine, and re-create penal policy, penal institutions and penal practices. This urgent policy desire is being propelled by a synthesis of principled, empirical, and financial reasoning. In Scotland, for example, this can be seen in developments such as the McLeish Report ‘Scotland’s Choice’, recent legislation (e.g. Criminal Justice & Licensing Act 2010), the potential expansion of Problem-Solving Justice, the growth in diversion from prosecution and in out-of-court penalties, the imminent establishment of a Sentencing Council for Scotland, the 2012 Commission on Women Offenders; and, the increasing interest in reparation, apology, and alternative forms of adjudication and sentencing, such as multi-disciplinary and problem-solving courts. Hence for this and other reasons, Scotland makes for an excellent case study in the dynamics of penal change. Similar developments are also evident in the search of the coalition government of England and Wales for more effective penal ‘solutions’, as they are in the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, USA, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and several other national jurisdictions in the western world.

· Headlines dictating policy and penology

· Contemporary strategies of penal reform

· At the time of writing, there are 15 prisons in Scotland (one of which is currently run by a private sector company, with the remainder coming under the tutelage of the Scottish Prison Service, an executive agency linked to the Scottish government). Corntonvale is the only establishment solely for women and Polmont is the principal institution for young male offenders (those aged between 16 and 20).

In keeping with trends outlined above, crime survey data suggest that a growing proportion of people in Scotland perceive crime rates in their local area to be relatively stable (Brown and Bolling 2007), and data from the Scottish Household Survey indicate that a range of incivilities are also perceived to be fairly stable over time (Scottish Government 2007c) (Figure 4). By contrast, when asked specifically about youth crime, a majority of respondents to the Scottish Social Attitudes survey (69 percent) reported that youth crime had increased over the past decade (Anderson et al. 2005). However, when respondents were asked how much they had been affected by various aspects of youth behaviour, only a tiny percentage indicated that these behaviours had had a major effect on their lives (Figure 5). This perception of rising youth crime levels (in the face of limited actual evidence) may be a consequence of the saturation political and media coverage of the issue since devolution (McAra 2007).

In spite of the falling/stabilizing picture of serious crime outlined above, imprisonment rates have continued to grow. Indeed, Scotland has one of the highest imprisonment rates in Europe (Figure 6). The rise in the average daily population is principally due to an increase in sentence lengths. A major cause for concern is the growing number of women who are given relatively short sentences (six months to four years) for petty persistent offending and the 40 percent increase in the total number of remand receptions since 2000, for men and women, many of whom do not end up with a custodial sentence (see Scottish Government 2007b).

Indeed the ‘Scottish case’ lends further support to theories of penal change that give primacy to the localized cultural practices through which broader structural processes are mediated, resisted or transformed (see Melossi 2001).

Since the mid-1990s Scotland’s divergent trajectory has stalled, with a major retreat from welfarist principles evident in some areas of both juvenile and adult criminal justice. Although the roots of this change can be traced to the period immediately prior to devolution, ministerial appetite for reform has exponentially increased in the post-devolutionary era and political rhetoric has become more punitive in tone. Indeed, the crime problem was ‘talked up’ by ministers in Scotland precisely at the moment when published statistics (outlined above) indicated falling/stabilizing trends

The increased levels of managerialism and institutional construction have also been accompanied by a shift in the underlying ethos of the youth and adult justice systems away from penal welfarism to a more eclectic set of rationales, including public protection and risk management.

Recent years have seen a fusion between the government’s criminal justice, social inclusion and social crime prevention strategies, with communities increasingly being regarded as stakeholders in criminal justice (McAra 2007). Key staging posts were the policy documents Partnership for Scotland (Scottish Executive 1999a) and Safer Communities in Scotland (Scottish Executive 1999b), which included proposals to reduce crime through promoting safer, more empowered communities, as well as to confront the causes of crime as linked to unemployment and social isolation. Similarly within youth justice, Scotland’s action programme to Reduce Youth Crime (Scottish Executive 2002) highlighted a need for improved neighborhood safety programmes, more effective early intervention to promote parenting skills, and an increase in (community-based) cultural and sporting programmes to enable young people to fulfil their potential.

In the period since devolution, welfarist institutions have found it increasingly difficult to achieve such cultural anchorage. Arguably, civic culture in Scotland has gone into a period of drift. Politics is far less polarized and there has been greater ideological congruence between the Labour/Liberal Democratic coalition government in Scotland (which dominated until May 2007) and the Blairite New Labour government at Westminster. This served initially to weaken a sense of political identity in Scotland based on ‘other-to-England’, with a concomitant weakening of the purchase of welfarism as a principal framework around which debates on criminal justice have taken place.

As is well documented in the criminological literature, weak governments often turn to crime control as a ready mechanism through which to overcome crises of legitimacy. Efforts to build capacity are evident in the ‘hyper-institutionalization’ that characterized the first decade of devolution, the attempts to construct community solidarities principally via a crime control agenda, and the harder-edged populist rhetoric accompanying many changes to both youth and adult justice.

· Conclusion

1. Brown, A., D. Mccrone and L. Paterson, eds (1996) Politics and society in Scotland. Basingstoke: Macmillan
2. Feeley, M. and J. Simon (1994) ‘Actuarial justice: The emerging new criminal law’, in D. Nelken (ed.) The futures of criminology, pp. 173–202. London: Sage Publications.
3. Garland, D. (1995) ‘Penal modernism and postmodernism, in T. Blomberg and S. Cohen (eds) Punishment and social control, pp. 181–210. New York: Aldine de Gruyter Publishing.
4. Garland, D. (2001) The culture of control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. McAra, L. (1999) ‘The politics of penality: An overview of the development of penal policy in Scotland’, in P. Duff and N. Hutton (eds) Criminal justice in Scotland, pp. 355–80. Dartmouth: Ashgate.
6. McAra, L. (2005). Modeling penal transformation. Punishment and Society 7, 277–302.
7. Melossi, D. (2001) ‘The cultural embeddedness of social control: Reflections on the comparison of Italian and North American cultures concerning punishment’, Theoretical Criminology 5(4): 403–25.
8. Nellis, M. (1996) ‘Probation training: The links with social work’, in T. May and A.Vass (eds) Working with offenders, issues, contexts and outcomes, pp. 7–30. London: Sage Publications.

Sandel, M. J. (2015). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Introduction:

Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel’s “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” second half follows the same formula as the first half.After exposing readers to three philosophies regarding the term justice, Sandel moves from introducing readers to the contemporary philosophies of Bentham, Nozick, and Kant to the ideals of John Rawls and Aristotle. In the last half of the book, Sandel explores the following ideas and asks questions about the moral limit of contracts, who deserves what, and what do we owe one another? Sandel builds off the rationals introduced such as utilitarianism and libertarianism. Although they don’t play a primary role. The method of analogy employed by Sandel is consistent throughout the publication. This is evident through the frequent use of real-life events that have occurred in the United States as well as current issues that provoke strong emotion such as the use of border patrols near the cities across the Rio Grande such as El Paso and towns in Arizona such as Tucson. Sandel also mentions abortion rights and whether or not individuals should be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors and or those of the same community who came before them. The purpose of this paper is to further review concepts introduced by Sandel and his contemporaries as well as evaluate its cultural significance and context. Sandel proves to be a very adept and successful writer when expressing his own opinions and offers a very convincing argument to follow through with his beliefs.

Background Information:

Once again, this specific publication by Professor Sandel is meant to serve as a source of supplemental instruction for his world famous “Justice” course at Harvard. Following the same procedure as the previous book review, the criteria for judging the latter half of this novel is based on the author’s intent, content, and how successfully he introduces new concepts as well as tie in current events with the newly introduced philosophies of John Rawls and Aristotle. Although the first half of the book introduced is of disputed nature, Sandel provides even more sensitive information to the readers.

Summary and Evaluation:

Sandel begins chapter six of the book, the case for equality by declaring most Americans never signed a social contract and proceeds to use this claim to introduce readers to the philosophical ideas of 19th century political philosopher John Rawls. While Sandel takes note of Kant’s appeals to hypothetical consent, Sandel asks, “How can a hypothetical agreement do the moral work of a real one?” (Justice p. 76) Sandel, interestingly makes the observation on how individuals in the United States are obligated to follow the law yet these naturalized citizens never explicitly give their consent to follow the law, the opposite is true if the citizen is naturalized In the beginning of the chapter, Sandel introduces Rawl’s idea of a social contract which is what Sandel defines as a conjured agreement in a unique stance of equality. What Rawls means by this is that we as individuals are not all motivated by self-interest in real life and that people are rational. From these two assumptions, Rawls concludes that a hypothetical contract would consist of two principles. The first principle is what is stated in the Bill of Rights as the First Amendment. For those who are a little rusty on their United States history, this basically is the idea of the minimum amount of basic liberties for all citizens detailed as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Rawls holds this ideal above the utilitarian philosophy of prioritizing social utility and the overall general welfare of the people. The second principle unique to Rawl’s philosophy is not the concept of an equal distribution of wealth but the permittance of those who of excess wealth to retain their wealth only if it works to the advantage of the least economically fortunate members of society. Sandel asks “How can principles of justice be derived from an agreement that never actually took place?” (Sandel p.77), although he does not divulge his opinions on the first three philosophical ideas introduced, he later reveals he sides with John Rawls and his beliefs. The most significant concept introduced in A Theory of Justice by Rawls and praised by Sandel is the idea of the way things are aren’t the way they should be. Sandel makes Rawls his clear favorite and later on introduces the flawed philosophies of Aristotle as a form of employing the attraction effect in order to make Rawls look even better.

In terms of how Sandel writes, his motives are made clear by the end of the novel as there is really no real way to proceed about Justice rather it is how we engage our peers in conversation when in conflict and debate. Additionally, to define how Sandel succeeds in making Rawls’ philosophy look so appealing is the use of the attraction effect. Often used as a ploy in marketing, Sandel reveals that he not only introduces the three former ideas to expose readers and open them to engage in the term justice but rather increase the attractiveness of picking Rawls’ philosophy. The attraction effect used in the novel essentially the attractiveness of Rawls’ ideas when compared to the cold calculating philosophy of utilitarianism, libertarianism without its bounds, and the rigid staunch moral stance of Immanuel Kant, and eventually the incorrect misguided ideas of Aristotle who believed some people were just meant to be slaves. Referring back to Rawls’ philosophy, Sandel offers numerous examples to further the claim that consent isn’t enough to create a morally binding obligation and proceeds to state that it many not even be a requirement of a fair and moral agreement. Like in the first half of the novel, Sandel provides many examples to demonstrate this fact. To illustrate that consent isn’t enough to create an obligation, he offers an anecdote of when his two sons were young, where the older son would take advantage of his younger brother by making deals where he was well off much to the lack of benefit to his brother. Sandel had to intervene illustrating voluntary exchanges may be unfair. Moreover demonstrating the lack of consent was Sandel’s other anecdote in which an automobile repair happened about Sandel when his car broke down and evoked the moral obligation of benefit without consent. Sandel’s anecdotes cause him to imagine the perfect contract where he comes to the conclusion that people are situated differently and this means that differences in bargaining power and knowledge are always possible.

Chapter seven deals with distribution justice, here Sandel provides examples that deal with this sort of justice such as racial preferences, affirmative action, and college admissions. The key takeaway from chapter six is that distributive justice is not a matter of rewarding moral desert. To be brief, Sandel evokes Kant and Rawls when describing these matters, their ideas that desirable ends must not override individual rights. From the examples Sandel introduces, he concludes that the mission defines the relevant merits and not the other way around. This way of thinking is similar to Rawl’s interpretation of justice in income distribution; once again it is not a matter of moral desert. In summary, these two chapters serve as a catalyst to end the publication and places Rawls’ philosophy in a position to outshine the rest of the other philosophies in the book.

Chapter eight who deserves what opens with an analogy concerning Callie Smartt, a popular freshman cheerleader in West Texas. Sandel’s example is described as follows, “If Callie should be a cheerleader because she displays, despite her disability, the virtues appropriate to the role, her claim does pose a certain threat to the honor accorded the other cheerleaders. The gymnastic skills they display no longer appear essential to excellence in cheerleading, only one way among others of rousing the crowd. Ungenerous though he was, the father of the head cheerleader correctly grasped what was at stake. A social practice once taken as fixed in its purpose and in the honors it bestowed was now, thanks to Callie, redefined. She had shown that there’s more than one way to be a cheerleader.” (Justice p.98) This example exhibits the question of virtue, honor, and Aristotle’s Telos as seen in the analogies explained throughout the chapter. People have expectations about the individuals who participate in social events such as cheerleading and golf. The dispute that Sandel describes in West Texas is analogous to the conflict that occurs when people who don’t honor traditional virtues of their predecessors.

Following suite, Sandel proceeds to define Aristotle’s political philosophy which is split into two ideas which are described as such, “1. Justice is teleological. Defining rights requires us to figure out the telos (the purpose, end, or essential nature) of the social practice in question. 2. Justice is honorific. To reason about the telos of a practice—or to argue about it—is, at least in part, to reason or argue about what virtues it should honor and reward” (Justice p. 99). Aristotle believes that the definition of justice is to give people what they deserve but then Sandel intervenes and asks, “what is a person due, what are the relevant grounds of merit or desert?” To this end, Aristotle bases his moral philosophy on teleological reasoning. The prefix of the word telos obviously comes from greek and is defined as purpose, end, or goal. Sandel notes while Aristotle is somewhat correct in deciding that the just distribution of a good depends on its telos, this ancient form of thinking does not translate well into the physical sciences such as physics, chemistry, or biology. Prior to my exposition of Aristotle’s teleological reasoning, I would like to note that Sandel makes clear that Aristotle’s form of thinking is weakest when compared to the political philosophies of more contemporary philosophers and it seems like Sandel does this on purpose. I mean Aristotle believed that some people were meant to be slaves and does that not ignore some of the basic fundamental rights we have come to expect as we have grown? Cracks are evident in Aristotle’s reasoning as for Aristotle, the polis or city requires a division of labor, some people are just born to be slaves. This is unacceptable in modern liberal political theory. Slavery is unjust as it is coervice even in teleological terms. It is unfair and unjust because it is contrary to our nature and inhibits human nature. However, although Aristotle supported slavery, teleological reasoning can still be applied well in distributive justice in terms of political office. Aristotle’s distributive philosophy rests on an intrinsic mindset, he believes that the purpose of politics isn’t in order to set up a framework rights but serves to form good citizens as well as cultivate equally good character. Politics is a form of transcendance for this cornerstone of Greek philosophy, Aristotle deliberates that politics is about something higher. To participate in politics is to learn how to live a good life as well as allow individuals to develop unique social capacities and virtues as well as debate the common good. The reason why I emphasize Aristotle’s justification of slavery is to highlight how it makes his political philosophy pale compared to Rawl’s claim of just because things are the way they are, doesn’t make it correct.

Lastly, regarding Aristotle’s beliefs on virtue, Sandel makes an analogy so readers can easily understand what he means. Becoming virtuous is like playing the flute. Returning to distribution justice, one could argue on both sides of the hypothetical argument. In these cases, Aristotle would say that goods were meant to be enjoyed by those who would most appreciate its worth while Sandel claims that that is subjective. The conclusion comes down to the debate of the essential nature of whatever is being debated of. Like other examples in the novel, Sandel doesn’t offer a clear choice but makes a favorite evident. Arguments over rights and justice are conflicts of interpretation about the purpose of social constructs, goods that are distributed, and what these virtues stand for. There are many stances on these issues but Sandel makes apparent that it doesn’t matter about who is right and who is wrong but how we come to a productive discussion and take perspective.

Chapter nine primarily deals with the moral weight of community and whether or not those of this current generation are responsible for the actions of their predecessors. The examples Sandel presents usually occupy the bulk of the paper however in this case the arguments of moral individualism take priority. The real world application of this concept that Sandel brings is the apologies and reparations delivered by these four countries: Germany, Japan, Australia, and finally the United States. For Germany and Japan, their war crimes in World War II, Australia’s successful elimination of the original indigenous people by assimulation, and the United States with slavery. The answer Sandel provides is that individuals of a community are only responsible for what they do not the actions of others in the community not even their parents or compatriots. In actuality this makes sense, why would you be punished for the actions of someone you barely know or isn’t even alive anymore. To make readers question this assumption, Sandel evokes the ideas of Kant and Rawls that the choices we make often reflect random contingencies and hypothetical agreements. Say, a Caucasian American may feel some moral guilt over slavery otherwise known as white guilt when confronting African-Americans. Furthermore, Sandel seems to reject Aristotle’s teleology in this chapter as it seems to not leave enough room for people to choose for themselves.

To begin the ending of his novel, Sandel opens chapter ten with a comment said by then U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama, “He began by recalling the way he had dealt with the religious issue in his U.S. Senate campaign two years earlier. Obama’s opponent, a rather strident religious conservative, had attacked Obama’s support for gay rights and abortion rights by claiming he was not a good Christian, and that Jesus Christ would not have voted for him. “I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates,” Obama said, looking back. “I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois” (Justice p.128) This remark not only displays Obama’s quick wit and deeply missed eloquence but the conclusion that Sandel has been building for the past ten chapters. This theme is that we must be able to not separate our views into absolutes such as libertarianism or utilitarianism but take ideals from both and apply them. One answer is not correct par say yet it only matters how we proceed to make discussion about whatever is being debated about. Obama looking back on hindsight acknowledges that although the response was hilarious and awesome, it was wrong of him to insist that moral and religious convictions play no part in politics and law. Sandel’s most instrumental call to action is the aspiration to be neutral which is a subheading in chapter ten. This aspiration calls for a philosophy that holds government to be neutral on moral and religious ideas for this allows individuals the freedom of choice that John Rawls and Immanuel Kant rave over. Endeavours to remove faith-friendly forms of public reason is misguided according to Obama and apparently Sandel. This is due to two reasons, it may not be wise and it isn’t always possible to resolve questions of justice and rights without answering evident moral questions. Ultimately, Sandel attempts to promote the cultivation of virtue and reasoning.