When we use the term "justice," we rarely notice that sometimes we use it to refer to one type of justice and sometimes to mean another type of justice that is exactly the opposite. The two types of justice are "punitive justice" (actually, it is a reaction, not justice) and "unitive justice."
Punitive "justice" is set out in ancient teachings based on the principle, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." It says it is "just" to harm others who have harmed us, so long as the harm we do is commensurate with the harm done to us. It is a form a justice that is tied to dual morality. Mahatma Gandhi has described this eye for an eye justice as a way to make the whole world blind, because when both sides believe their harm is just, the harming can be extensive.
Unitive Justice is also set out in ancient teachings. It is based on the principle, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and other similar concepts that are found in all the major world religions (See The Golden Rule in World Religion). It is tied to monomorality, i.e.,one moral standard guides our conduct; our morality is not measured by the lack of morality reflected in the acts of others.
In punitive "justice", violence is seen as one's right in response to the violence of others. But it was unitive justice that Jesus described in the Sermon on the Mount when he commanded that we not resist violence. Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. These are two mutually exclusive world views.
"We have created a world in which schoolchildren kill each other for justice,
adults engage in every form of malice in the name of justice,
terrorists indiscriminately massacre thousands of people under the delusions of justice, and nations go to war waving the blood-red flag of justice."
(James P. Kimmel, Jr., Suing For Peace, p. 67.)
Punitive "justice" has retribution and punishment as its goals and violence as its means. Unitive justice has healing and reconciliation as its goals and forgiveness as its means. While one might claim "good intent," the form of justice that is intended is always revealed in the outcome.
The form of justice that is being practiced cannot be hidden because, when punitive "justice" is compared to unitive justice, we find two extrinsic norms at opposite ends of the spectrum—violence and non-violence. In this analysis, the morality of our acts is measured by the extent to which they comport with one or the other—with an eye for an eye (vengeance), or doing to others as we would have done unto us (unity).
Many attempts have been made to reconcile (or confuse) these two forms of justice, especially by those who profess their belief in unitive justice because it is taught by their religious tradition, while continuing, nonetheless, to practice punitive "justice". This is understandable. When so much is invested in punitive "justice" in the form of well-established criminal and civil legal systems, in militarism and the machines of war, in nuclear arsenals and clandestine agencies, one cannot expect this investment to be relinquished with ease.
"Look back upon our history. You will discover that the pursuit of justice
has been the source of every violent, hurtful and unkind thought,
word, and deed since the beginning of time."
~James P. Kimmel, Jr., Suing For Peace, p. 63
The journey from one worldview to the other is the journey from fear to love and from duality to unity (See Realities of Unity and Duality). It is a process that requires evolution, mistakes, and many lessons learned. As yet, unitive justice is not widely practiced by governments or policy makers, but seeds are being planted. This is what the Unitive Justice Movement is about.
The growing restorative justice movement in the United States and around the world, a movement to redirect the ends of the criminal/correctional system from vengeance to the ends of restoration, reconciliation, healing and transformation, is an example of how we can move toward unitive justice.
The Truth and Reconciliation Trials of South Africa are an example of institutionalized unitive justice. This form of justice has been used in areas where violence has been so widespread that the traditional justice system cannot deal with all of the crimes committed, such as Rawanda and the Balkans. The extent to which these new tribunals are able to depart from punitive "justice" and actually achieve unitive justice is mixed. It is still admirable when the attempt is made to take the path toward unitive love.
Today, when policy makers claim that their "realism" requires that, in cases such as terrorism or on-going genocide, they must continue to employ vengeance to stop vengeance, consider whether or not they are achieving their stated goal. (There may be unstated goals, such as profit or control, that are being achieved.)
And demand that policy makers and politicians be honest about which form of justice they are employing, unitive justice, or punitive "justice", which is a reaction, not worthy of being called "justice". They are either doing one or the other, not both. Tell them which you prefer your tax dollars to be invested in.
