1. What is justice?
2. Consider the clips we saw in class from the movie "The Shawshank Redemption". Was (retributive) justice ultimately served? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
About Me
- dsm
- Biostatistician, Biology and Philosophy Faculty, Lacrosse Addict
Posts
5 comments:
Jessica Meza
When I think about what justice is, many words come to mind such as, fair, punishment, reward, just, law, etc. If someone commits a crime worth punishing such as murder that person should feel remorse and willingly or through enforcement by the law, pay for what they have done, the worse the crime the worse the penalty. In a just world people would admit to their wrongful actions so one couldn’t be considered innocent until proven guilty because as viewed in Shawshank Redemption an innocent being can accidentally be proven guilty. So in the case of the main character in the movie, ultimately, justice was served because he did not kill anyone and was sentenced to 2 life sentences anyway due to unfortunate evidence that incriminated the wrong person. He had to take charge and create his own justice by breaking laws once in prison, becoming a criminal after the fact instead of before hand disproving that being a law abiding citizen doesn’t always result in reward. He worked diligently to make his own rewards which he was able to benefit from after several years of his life were lived behind bars in a prison full of corruption. I don’t believe justice truly exists in our world because if it did there wouldn’t be a need for prisons, punishments, laws, law enforcement, judges or anything else designed to separate those who have acted as dangerous people from the compliant people. However, humans are imperfect and full of flaws so it is no wonder that law was established by our founding fathers. There is also a reason why many of us have already been told at some point in our life by whomever that life isn’t fair.
Ryan Keene
In the film The Shawshank Redemption I do feel that justice was served. The main character did actually have a gun and intended to use it until he had a second thought or a second drink. He may not have deserved two life sentences but he did serve twenty years and I do feel that that was necessary. He escaped and was not caught which I do feel was appropriate for him to do. He learned a good lesson and he also caught "the real bad guys" which were the administrative officials of the prison. Justice is not measured by a personal vendetta, but it is something that needs to be evaluated. He did not kill his wife, but did plan it. He was guilty of this and yet he was not. An eye for an eye is something that I do not think is appropriate, but I do feel that the punishment does need to equal the severity of the crime. In my opinion, justice is not served at all in today's society because it is officiated by politics and not by actual evaluation. We are actually suffering more from putting people in prison. The victims of crimes are actually paying to keep people locked up and not actually receiving justice from the system. I am sure that the victims of the wife in the movies would say otherwise, and it is unfortunate that criminal investigation was not what it is now, however this does not mean that someone should suffer just from the emotionality and smooth talk of victims and lawyers respectively.
Jessica Southland
Justice: the balance of public interests and individual right. The fait sharing of the available goods of society, ptoper punicsment for criminals and fair restitution to the victums of the crime and misfortune in society.
When you look back at the movie "justice" was not served do to the fact that the man that was guilty of the crime was never found are punished for the murder of his wife, therefore he was charged and served time for a crime he did not commit. But as for the question if retributive justice was served YES. I believe that the he did alot of good for the prision helped everybody else and in the end freed himself and punished the men that where doing wrong.He spent 19 years in prison for a crime he did not commit( although he sure did think about it). Although he did some illegal stuff to get there, he defently got what was coming to him.
In our society people have been getting away with so many things that they should be punished for, but due to the fact that they are powerfull they seem to get by with out being seen.
Susan McCliment
Justice is entirely subjective. What one person sees as fair and just is seen as completely inequitable by another. At it's core, each person's view of Justice is what they see as bringing balance to a situation. Justice is about attaining equilibrium and redressing wrongs.
In The Shawshank Redemption, Andy Dufresne did not receive retributive justice in my opinion. There are three things that required balancing: his legal incarceration after his murder conviction, Captain Hadley's role in his continued incarceration after he would have been cleared and released, and Warden Sadler's role in the same situations.
One could argue that the money Andy took from Warden Sadler and his escape balance the time he spent in prison as a convicted murderer; however, does money really balance the loss of freedom he experienced? He was a successful banker at a very early age. While his marriage was failing, there is no telling what would have happened in his life had he not been imprisoned. This is the most ambiguous of the three issues.
His treatment at the hands of Captain Hadley, along with Hadley's role in keeping him incarcerated and in killing Tommy (who's information could have set Andy free) are the closest Andy sees to retributive justice. While it is never explicitly stated, we can guess that the treatment Hadley receives at the hands of his fellow inmates after he is convicted of his crimes is less than gentle.
Warden Sadler's situation is where justice is least served. Sadler's suicide, while an admission of guilt does not make up for the time he kept Andy as his personal prisoner. Justice would have been served had he been incarcerated and made to suffer the same loss of freedom as Andy. His death is not justice in the sense of retribution. Death was his release, a coward's way out from facing the pain, humiliation and loss that he inflicted on Andy. Sadler might have received the death penalty for his crimes, but that would have been as a means to protect society, not justice.
Peter Ngor
It is very hard to really know what is just because when a person does something we might think they deserve punishment for what they did. But in our world system nobody is sure about what other people did whether it is a crime that is more brutal like murder we might have the accuser, but not hundred percentages sure if he is really the murderer. However watching the movie shawshank the redemption you can see that there are some truth about what the guy did, there were some sign s or prove that show he might have been the killer but at the same time he was not the actual murderer in this case, and he was sentence to life imprison at which he was not guilty of. To me it is very easy to prove some guilty even if they did not committed that crime after all. So in our system criminal sometime get away with crime, just because we thought we have the person in charge of that crime. Therefore it is appropriate to show justice by punished the criminal with what worth their crime even though it might not be the right person, but due to some external evident we should punish them and that is how it should be. Unfortunately because as a human being we cannot foretell anything or know what is in someone heart, but we just go with what many thought might be the right thing to do.
Post a Comment