1. What is justice?
2. Consider 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
About Me
- dsm
- Biostatistician, Biology and Philosophy Faculty, Lacrosse Addict
Posts
12 comments:
What is justice? Justice is similar to freedom in that it means many different things to different people. When I think of justice I think of fairness and equality. Equality means being treated the same no matter what your race, sex, social class or religion. I believe equality in all things is unrealistic, but I do believe it is something to strive for. Growing up, I think most people were taught some version of the golden rule or always treat others the way you would like to be treated. If everyone would try to see themselves in the other guys shoes and consciously apply the golden rule to EVERYONE that they dealt with everyday, the world would be much more just. It is a shame that in our society most things seem to be all about money. People have the attitude of “what can this situation do for me?” or “what do I get out of it?” instead of “is this the right or fair thing to do?”
The concepts I have talked about so far are considered social justice but I have approached them from an individual perspective. When thinking socially one must consider the bigger picture. Sometimes what seems fair for an individual is unfair for the rest of society. When considering things like should everyone be allowed to vote, drink, or drive, society has to balance the rights of the individual with public interests such as safety. At times the rights of the individual must even be taken away completely because they are considered a danger to themselves or others. If a person has committed a crime against another person or society, we expect them to “pay” for their crime; this is known as retributive justice or criminal justice.
The movie “The Shawshank Redemption” is an interesting portrayal of retributive justice. About half way through the film we learn that the main character, Andy, did not commit the awful murders that he was sent to prison for. When Andy tries to get the warden to petition for a new trial on his behalf the warden locks him in solitary confinement for over a month and has the witness that can establish Andy’s innocence murdered. You see, Andy is a very handy financial advisor and accountant, making all of the warden’s shady deals look legitimate. Near the end of the movie Andy escapes from prison, sends proof to the newspapers of the warden’s misconduct along with the identity of the guard that shot and killed the witness I mentioned earlier. He also gets all the money that he helped the warden accumulate and leaves the country. When considering whether or not retributive justice was ultimately served in this movie, I think that in some ways it was and in other ways it was not. I believe it was served in the case of the prison guard that was arrested for the murder of the witness. Since he was caught and I imagine ultimately sent to prison, the implication is that he will be paid back for all the brutal acts of violence he committed against the prisoners he was guarding. I also think that justice was served (as well as it could be) in the case of Andy because he got all of the money to compensate him for all the years of his life that he lost and all of the pain and suffering he endured. In the case of the warden, because he killed himself before he could be arrested and sent to prison, I’m not sure if he paid enough for his crimes. He did pay his life for the life of the man that he had murdered, but he did not pay any thing for all his other crimes against society. It would have been more just, in my opinion, for him to go to prison along with the guard.
Position Paper #12
Justice
What is justice? Again I think it depends on who you ask. The definition of justice lays in the eyes of the beholder and not all people may see justice the same way. For me, I think justice is being treated with equality and fairness in all circumstances, and for me, like most others probably, I usually think only of retributive justice. I think of justice as repayment for a wrong that was committed on many different levels. I have never, prior to this class, really considered social justices…fairness in things like how much in taxes we all pay or where educational funding comes from. When you begin to try to break down those sorts of issues and come to a consensus as to what is fair and just, there will never be agreement between all parties, you just have to go with the majority. Therefore, I don’t believe true justice can ever be achieved on a social level.
In the movie “The Shawshank Redemption”, retributive justice was achieved in one case, the case of the prison guard that was arrested. I think he should be sent to death row for the two prisoners we know he killed. He should also be beaten to within an inch of his life everyday until his execution to pay retribution for all the countless prisoners who he bestowed the same courtesy in his years of service at the prison. In the case of the warden, it’s a shame that he killed himself before he could really begin to repay his debt to society. Although he did know about the murder of the witness that could have gotten Andy released, and he obviously arranged for it to happen, he was not the one who actually shot him so I don’t believe him killing himself provided any real justice. I feel that he should have been forced to spend a long time in prison for his crimes, especially after finding out Andy was innocent and doing everything he could to keep him there anyway for his own personal benefit. As far as Andy is concerned, I am still on the fence about that. On one hand, I think it is great that he broke out of prison, stole the money that the warden had been embezzling and fled the country. He did get personal retribution by turning in the warden for his crimes, however, it never really said anything about the state. Now, is he a convicted murder who escaped and is still being pursued to be wrongfully placed back into prison again? Or is all forgiven and the state now knows he was wrongly imprisoned to begin with? I’m not sure about the states retribution owed to him. So, in my opinion it was just for Andy to get out of prison by whatever means necessary after spending, what was it…20 years there? I also think it was just for the prison guard to have been arrested. I don’t think any justice came from the warden committing suicide…the justice system got cheated out of sending a true criminal to prison to repay his debt to society!
Position Paper #12 What is Justice
Justice is “making a criminal pay for his crime”. Retributive justice carries with it the concept of getting even. I think that justice encompasses more than just making a criminal pay for his crime. Justice affects every facet of society, from the stock market to the local candy shop; from the courtroom to the schoolroom.
Justice has to do with the distribution of wealth, power and privileges. Plato, in his work The Republic said that after moderation, courage and wisdom, justice preceded and prevailed as one of the most essential characteristics to make a “city good”. Justice is a type of lubrication in a society that keeps it running smoothly.
In the movie The Shawshank Redemption, retributive justice was not necessarily meted out. The question with retributive justice is; when is “getting even” satisfied? Who determines the conditions of the retribution? In the movie, Red played the key role for the distribution of wealth among the inmates, on his own system of justice. On a larger scale, the warden’s injustice as a result of his embezzlement was only accentuated by his injustice in the areas of power and privileges. By ordering the death of the young man that was going to testify on Andy’s behalf, and compounding the injustice with solitary confinement of Andy, the warden illustrated this gross abuse of power. Privileges were given as rewards for favors for the guards not justly earned.
Inside the walls of the prison there was a society, set up with its own rules of behavior, on its own system of justice. Andy did not entirely succumb to that Shawshank system. He may have lost some battles, but ultimately, it seemed as though he won his war. He stayed focused and was diligent to follow through with his plan … to live, and not to acquiesce and die as others had when they faced hardship.
There was no way that Andy could get his deceased wife back. The prison guard as well as others involved in brutally beating and killing some of the inmates, will never be able to pay reparations for the mental and physical damages that they caused. In spite of the fact that Andy escaped to his dream, he still lost a lot that he could never get back.
No, I do not think that retributive justice was served or could be in the scenario that takes place in The Shawshank Redemption. I think that Andy had the right idea about moving on. He set out to use the stolen resources and his life to be busy about living; he was not preoccupied with the injustices that he had encountered. He did not seek out justice on someone else’s terms. His sense of justice was satisfied with the implementation of the plan that he had made to fulfill his dreams of living on the beach in Mexico.
Sources cited;
Introduction to Philosophy, Robert Solomon.
The film The Shawshank Redemption
Colonel Potter said it best, “Stupid rules are made to be broken.”
Justice involves a certain amount of vindication and rightness for the accused, especially the wrongly accused. If justice is to be served, the process must comprise of moral righteousness first and foremost.
Retributive justice was definitely served in the movie The Shawshank Redemption. Even though, some may consider Andy Dufresne to be an escapee from justice, I would strongly disagree. Although Andy broke the very order of law that keeps society in line, I don’t feel he had any choice if he was to become free again. Andy Dufresne found himself in a position beyond his control. The predicament he found himself in was predicated by a legal system that does occasionally convict those who are innocent. Dufresne’s circumstance was also exacerbated by a correctional facility awash in corruption and cruelty. It was apparent from the moment that Tommy was murdered by Warden Norton and Captain Hadley that Andy had no choice (unless he waited for the warden’s departure at some later point) but to foment his own escape. Andy Dufresne did not use evil or maliciousness in his efforts at freedom, but his wit and cunning. It is partly because of Andy’s honorable methods in how he served his sentence and his principled manner of escaping that I think he earns the title of “just.”
I don’t know how sitting in a prison cell – wrongly convicted, under the dictation of a wholly corrupt warden and his mob of underlings serves the purpose of justice. The idea that Andy Dufresne thwarted justice is way too conforming to me personally. The integrity of the legal system should not hinge upon unfair decisions as well as decisions justly made. If the whole legal system needs overhauling because it is somehow not fair, then let’s get to rebuilding. However, if the legal system is largely fair and effective but has some issues that could use improvement, let’s get to improving. Justice is worth a whole lot more to the United States population than the state of Texas, under the leadership of Governor George Bush would have us believe. Remember, Colonel Potter said it best.
Justice is what people think of as getting what is fair. If a person commits a crime, then they are tried and handed a sentence that others feel is worthy of their crime. What is hard to determine is how well does the punishment fit the crime. Each individual has their own idea of what is fair, and typically people can be more lenient as long as the crime wasn’t done to us. Yet, where does justice end? Does the judge or jury ever have to pay for a punishment they hand down that others feel is too extreme, or the person wasn’t guilty? We tend not to hold those people responsible for wrongfully accusing someone. There are also times where we see a person commit a horrible crime, but get let off lightly, or vice-a-versa. And when criminals pay, (by societies standards) for their punishment, they never will truly stop paying for their mistake. From my point of view justice is really just something that we create to make the victim feel better. Yet, that seems to rarely occurs anymore.
When I think about the movie Shawshank Redemption or prison in general, I do not believe retributive justice is ever served. One thing about humans is that most of us can adapt to our new environment to survive. When we are given such extreme volatile conditions to live in there may be regret in the beginning, but eventually survival takes its place and you no longer focus on what you did wrong. It seems that inmates come out worse than when they went it. The movie is hard to compare to real life, because we feel more sympathetic towards the main characters by getting to know their character. Also, we do know that Tim Robbin’s character is innocent. There are a lot of people on the outside of jail that view all prisoners as horrible people, but there are some that aren’t bad people. I’ve never felt that prison gives retributive justice for anyone; it just creates the real criminal we all have inside of us. From personal experience, my family member made a stupid decision during his teenage years. He will not be released until he is in his seventies, because he was accused of taking another gang members life. It is hard to think of a person you love never enjoying life, especially when you know they have a good heart. And what is even harder for me is that there will never be any justice in the whole matter, because in the end who was it that got even?
What is justice? The textbook definition of justice is “in the general sense, the virtues of an ideal society. In the particular sense, the balance of public interest and individual rights, the fair sharing of the available goods of society, the proper punishment of criminals, and the fair restitution to victims of crime and misfortune within society”. Soloman, R. Introducing Philosophy, New York, Oxford Press, 2008.
I would simplify that to the application of the same punishment for the same crime. Justice is supposed to be blind to any factors that might prejudice or alter the even application of justice, but it often isn’t.
For example, to make legal representation available to anyone who needs it and cannot afford it, an individual is assigned a lawyer. The lawyer he is assigned is on a rotation list, and represents his client pro bono. Very often these lawyers have such heavy work schedules, that he does not have the time available to properly represent his client, unlike the lawyer who gets paid by his wealthy client, and thus, can often shift his schedule to accommodate him. So wealth often does make a difference. The sex of the offender can also make a difference. Women have traditionally been viewed as the “weaker” sex, less aggressive and violent. There have been studies that seem to confirm this idea. However, in recent years, women have become more aggressive, with a consequent rise in the crimes they commit. The color of the offender has also been a factor in the sentences received. Clearly, justice is not blind, and very often the same sentence for the same crime is not applied.
Was retributive justice applied in the Shawshank Redemption? The “eye for an eye” kind?
I don’t think so. Take, for example, the head guard who was so abusive. He kills at least two inmates. For retributive justice to be applied, he would have to be incarcerated in the same prison, with the same inmates and guards that he abused and bullied. Although he does get arrested, we cannot assume what his punishment will be. Since his arrest happens in the 1960’s, though, when prisons were coming under closer scrutiny, we can hypothesize that he will be jailed in anther facility, away from anyone intent on revenge. The warden escapes retributive justice by killing himself. One might be tempted to conclude that his death atones for the inmate he had killed, and those others who died on his watch. I do not think so. He took his life to avoid the justice he knew he deserved, the consequent loss of reputation when the community found out about his embezzlement, and the possibility of incarceration in his own prison. Being in the same prison with men he felt were beneath him, and at the mercy of guards that had previously been under his command, would have been a big blow to his pride and ego. In the film, the warden appears to be about 50 years old. He could conceivably live into his 80’s, maybe another 35 years. Imagine having to live every day for 35 more years, with the men you abused. That would have been retributive justice!
Justice can work a bit like freedom. Justice is something you can define as fair.
In the movie, the main character, Andy, is sent to prison on a conviction that we know he did not commit. Justice is the fair way of how to punish criminals or to know if they are guilty. It is something very hard because justice can sometimes be unfair. How do we know what rules to take when punishing someone. According to who, is justice fair.
Justice is trying to be fair when a situation occurs. With millions of diverse people, no one will ever agree what would be fair to someone who has done something wrong. It is also very difficult to figure out what their punishment will be because you don’t know if it fair, and even more if they did do what they were accused of. Justice is a very complex situation because we don’t know if we are right on the punishment we are giving them and if it is enough.
I don’t believe retributive justice was served with some individuals in Shawshank Redemption. The prison guard, Captain Hadley, was very violent to the prisoners and he probably killed more than 2 people. At the end he was arrested, but he should have gotten a harsher punishment with all the suffering he caused. The judge and the court system believed that giving him jail time would be right for him because they didn’t witness how he treated prisoners. If they had, they would have made him beaten and probably given him a death sentence right.
In Warden Sandler’s situation he didn’t get his justice. It was great that he gave Andy another opportunity to work in jail like doing taxes for millions of people and make differences in the jail. Later in the movie, when he found out about the truth that Andy hadn’t committed the murder, he didn’t want to give him another trial. He found out that one of the guys knew the truth and had him shot, and made it seem as if he was going to escape. Although he didn’t “actually” shoot him, he did order for the crime to be made. It was justice when Andy stole his money, because he deserved it after he knew that one of his inmates was innocent and he didn’t want to help them out. He shouldn’t have shot himself because he should have gone through all the torture he made his inmates to through. He knew what was waiting for him and thought it would be better if he just ended his life.
I believe that retributive justice was served in Andy’s case. He was wrongfully accused for a murder that he didn’t commit, but at the end he deserved what he got. When Andy was trialed, all the evidence was proven that he had killed his wife and her lover. The court system and judge believed that Andy’s justice for murdering both was giving him double the time in prison. The poor guy had to serve 20 years when someone finally told who had really killed the two victims. When he told the warden, he didn’t want to give him an opportunity to prove his case. Andy decided he wasn’t going to be freed, so he made up a plan to escape and be someone that would not be suspicious. Although he did serve about 20 years in jail, he did end up very rich and he knows how to face life.
If we were put to witness Andy’s case at the beginning, we would probably say he was guilty of the crime. We never know who exactly did the felony, if we weren’t there. It is also difficult to give a punishment to someone because we don’t know if it is fair for what they did.
In order to answer the first question the definition given in our lecture for justice is balancing the public interest with individual interests. The balance is always changing and my opinion is that justice is blind and isn't always fair. If we relate this so called justice to the movie "The Shaw-shank Redemption" I think retributive justice was served for the Worden and the Worden's (girlfriend) the one who would do all the Worden's dirty work. I feel that the Worden took the easy way out by killing himself. I feel Andy escaping the Prison was great. Even if he was able to commit all kinds of fraud to have his own money. It is wonderful how the power of getting even can make so many things right. Its a trouble thing to wonder how many men and woman are in that same situation not guilty but the courts determine that they are. And when the courts are found wrong and the person is released its years later and all that person gets is a sorry and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive us while that persons life kids are all grown and life has changed without them and it's all supposed to be okay. I think in those situation the people who put that innocent man there should pay there own 10 years or how ever many years that innocent man spent in prison. Now that would be justice.
Justice means “the quality of being just; fairness. The principle of moral rightness in action or attitude; equity. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.” The idea of justice is subjective for every person. We think of justice as a virtue of fairness, and we often think that punishment is necessary to balance this equity (eye for an eye). Therefore, when impunity occurs we feel that there has been a tremendous violation of fairness. Some people take justice into their own hands” and some people leave divine judgment to the almighty. The penal system functions by depriving freedom from the accused. It is assumed that the lack of liberty, the amount of time served, the poor living conditions, and the ghosts of remorse (if there is any) is enough punishment. In reality, many of these people adapt to prison, therefore creating even more questions and doubts about the idea of fairness. There is also the case of injustice. It reminds me of the case of Clarence Brandley, an African-American who was wrongly-convicted of the murder of a 16 year-old girl. Brandley did not receive a fail trial (perhaps because of his race) and was sentenced to death. Eventually, he served 9 years in prison before he was found innocent.
In the film “The Shawshank Redemption” I think that justice is served, including all the time that Andy spent imprisoned. Although Andy didn’t kill his wife and her lover, he thought about doing it and went as far as to get a loaded gun. Instead of walking away with dignity and filing for a divorce, he put himself in a suspicious situation that he had to repay serving 20 years of his life.
Justice and Retribution
I believe that justice is considered as the actual legal aspect of law and human morals and rights of the public. So the two things are what make up what justice is, to include punishments for the offenders and restitution for the victims.
In reference to the movie Shawshank Redemption, there is no way that retributive justice was served.
No amount of money can ever repay the amount of time Andy spent in prison. He lost so much of his life that he will never get back. Now if you change it to the fact that maybe his life spent in prison was more worthwhile maybe I would agree in a way.
Andy seemed to value his life more and the things in life that he could gain by just believing. There is always the possibility that he would not ever have experienced those deep feelings in relation to what the world really is.
This is discussed when he makes the comment that “hope can set you free.” My belief is that in his mind even though he was behind the four walls he had made the life that he had more worthy.
The men that he befriended in the prison had been in those four walls for years and had never known the things that Andy was able to teach them. He was able to bridge the gap between the guards and the prisoners. It might have been in a not so clean way but he did it.
As the banker that he was on the outside, he might not have ever been able to reach that part of himself that he became while he was inside.
I don’t consider the warden taking his life as a “win” for Andy. An eye for an eye or getting even I believe would have been the warden actually being made to go through the exact same punishment that Andy went through and the other inmates that were exposed to his evil ways for that matter. The warden never had the chance to do that. The warden actually led a darn good life up until he killed himself. That is definitely not justice; I would consider that to be escaping justice.
Even the guards who had been involved in the murder of inmates, unless they also would have the exact same punishment happen to them, i.e. being beaten to death with a stick, they also are not getting their just desserts.
And in the prison there was also not an even distribution of power. The warden had the final say on all things and even when Andy put down leverage; he was reminded who had all the power.
The movie had a great ending but the fact that he was an innocent man that had been stifled for all that time behind bars still would not even out the balance of justice or retribution.
Post a Comment