Justice: Being at Peace

By the age of fifteen, Jacob had been expelled from two schools and had skipped his GCSEs, a general certificate of secondary education. To him, education wasn’t important. Neither was family. What was? Living his life with a gang mentality—honoring the code of always defending the guys he hung out with.

A few years later, at the age of nineteen, on a July day in 2011, Jacob spent most of the day drinking with some friends and celebrating a mate’s birthday. Later that night, he got a call about a fight that was brewing. When he arrived, he found some of his buddies preparing to fight a young man. He had been returning home, along with his father, brother, and three friends, after watching a cricket match. Joining in, Jacob threw a punch, hitting the young man once on the head. Jacob then ran off, unaware of what happened after he left.

About a month later, the police rounded up and arrested Jacob’s buddies but released them. Then, the police arrested Jacob. James, the man that Jacob hit that July night, had died. The single blow left James bleeding in his brain. After an unsuccessful operation, he was put on life support. When his parents saw how their son could not breathe independently, they requested that he be taken off the ventilator. Nine days after the attack, James died.

At the trial, Jacob pleaded guilty. James’ mother, Joan, later said it was helpful that he entered a guilty plea, sparing her and her husband a painful trial. Jacob was sentenced to four years in prison for manslaughter. Imprisoned and furious, Jacob kept thinking of the friends he had gone to help. They had saved themselves by naming him. So, in Jacob’s mind, he was that night’s victim.

When Jacob was released after thirteen months on a lighter sentence because of his age and guilty plea, Joan felt angry that Jacob had served so little time. The short sentence would not deter others. All it did was compound her pain.

Two months after his release, Jacob’s probation officer asked if he had heard of restorative justice, a process through which the offender and the victim, or family members of a deceased victim, meet to share their experiences of what happened.

The approach could benefit both parties. The offender, in this instance, Jacob, could learn to take responsibility and make amends. The victim’s parents, Joan and David, could reduce their bitterness and sense of helplessness, and move toward healing. After learning that Joan and David had agreed to the process, which a third-party organization would mediate, Jacob also agreed.

Although the process did not initially involve face-to-face meetings, Joan and David did learn more about the man whose single blow had resulted in their son’s death

The mediators explained that Jacob, feeling betrayed by his friends, viewed himself as the victim. Joan and David were shocked by this revelation. Also, they found it astounding that he hadn’t been offered classes. There had been no opportunity for rehabilitation or reflection, no chance to change. Jacob’s time in prison had been wasted. Upon release, he was homeless, unemployed, struggling, and still angry.

When Jacob learned of Joan and David’s concern, he found himself invested in the mediation process. For the first time, he realized what they had gone through because of his actions. Realizing that he was not the victim, Jacob became overwhelmed with guilt. It was time to change. He got a job and began studying for his GCSE, which he passed. He then began studying to get into a university and was accepted into a program that would culminate in obtaining a degree in criminology. Throughout this time, Joan and David continued to encourage him.

Finally came the time when they were ready to meet Jacob face-to-face. He later admitted, “Opening the door into the room where both David and Joan were waiting was the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do in my life, but I knew how important it was that I looked them in the eye and told them how sorry I was.” He also thanked them for initiating their communication and for having the courage to meet him.

For their part, Joan and David were finally able to ask the all-important “Why?” Joan later said that she no longer felt bitter about Jacob’s short sentence and that, unlike prison, she and David had truly helped Jacob regret and reform. Seeing his progress, Joan added that previously she had felt that forgiving Jacob would mean she had forgotten her son. But forgiveness did not mean forgetting. It enabled her to let go of her bitterness and to finally be at peace.

This account shows how different entities and participants can view justice differently.

From the legal system’s perspective, it could be said that justice had been accomplished because the prescribed sentence for an offender who unintentionally killed someone and admitted guilt had been handed out and served. But from Joan and Jacob’s perspective, punishment was only a component of justice. Nothing had been done to help Jacob modify his behavior. When he left prison, he was even less equipped to lead a productive life than when he went in.

It was through the process of restorative justice that justice was found. Joan felt Jacob had only been able to learn from his mistakes once he left prison. His progress helped Joan stop feeling helpless and disloyal to her son, and to find peace. Jacob not only accepted his guilt but realized the victims were James and his parents—not himself as he had earlier thought. By bettering his life through education and having a wiser choice of friends, Jacob was able to help Joan and David let go of their bitterness and move on from the tragedy of losing their son.

From this, we can see that justice is subjective. The judicial system, the offender, and the victims view justice through different lenses. And hence, varying views will emerge. For example, the victim’s family may view a sentence as too lenient, while the offender’s family deems it overly harsh. With such a likely range of views, neither side may feel that the decision is just.

This is understandable. Not only do people define justice differently, but even if everyone involved defines it the same way and tries to be impartial, a difficult feat, they cannot know the karmic seeds from the past lives of the victim and the accused. Many of the relevant facts are thus unknown. So it is no wonder that even under the best circumstances, mistakes can be made in the judicial process. And tragically, due to bias and prejudice on the part of some people in the process, even worse mistakes are made. Tragically, while justice is the goal, it is rarely the reality.

So, in light of all these challenges, how do we as individuals define justice?

For many, the answer is simple—punishment. We only need to look at social media, the news, or around us when we’re out in public to see how increasing numbers of people seek to punish others by verbally and even physically lashing out. In the instance of the young would-be phone thief in the talk in mercy titled “Violence is Not the Answer,” many commenters were upset that the shopkeepers didn’t beat him up. Never mind that the whole incident lasted all of ninety seconds, the shopkeepers remained unfazed throughout, and nothing was stolen. Fortunately for the young man, the shopkeepers viewed justice not simply as punishment and even offered to help him.

Their view of justice was much closer to Abdi’s in “Compassion: Another Form of Justice.” Abdi said of the woman who tried to run him down with her four-wheel drive vehicle that he forgave her because he felt compassion was another form of justice. Countering hatred with hatred solves nothing. The vengeful person may feel they have taught the other person a lesson and gotten even, but have they? And how will they feel afterward? As one victim’s husband said upon hearing that the person who attacked his wife would spend the rest of his life in prison, he thought he’d feel better and that the sentence would finally settle the matter. There would be a sense of closure, and he could get on with his life. But after the sentencing, all he felt was emptiness, not peace.

When we seek revenge, it will never be enough. The offense would still have been committed. Someone or something will still have been lost. One’s feeling of safety will have been replaced with that of vulnerability.

Revenge leaves us unfulfilled. The abyss of wounds remains open. Like an addiction, after the first rush, there’s the letdown. The “what now?” We’ll simply be left with seeds for more suffering now and in the future. Even if the punishment seems fulfilling initially, it does not resolve the underlying issue. Restoration can enable people to learn from their mistakes and change. We don’t want the lesson learned to be one of not getting caught. Of more skillfully evading capture the next time.

Rather we want it to be a commitment to never repeat the wrong action.

Restorative justice can accomplish this. It was suggested to Joan and David that it might be a way for them to work through their feelings by sharing their experience with Jacob and to get some of their questions answered. Jacob, feeling he owed it to them, agreed to participate.

The underlying principle in restorative justice, which can be utilized not just in legal cases but in everyday altercations and disagreements, is to decide what can be done to repair the harm that was done so that both parties can improve their respective situations. Through the help of a neutral, trusted individual, perhaps a mutual friend or a trusted advisor, those involved can share their pain and frustration, and what they experienced. One party can learn to take responsibility for their actions, stop blaming others, and choose how to modify their behavior. The other can begin to feel like they are regaining some control over their life and thus reduce their anxiety and begin to heal.

By understanding each other’s point of view, the emphasis on blame is removed. The past is just that—the past. The goal is to find peace going forward. Moving into the future, the injured party lets go of bitterness and the injuring party resolves how to act better in the future. When the process is successful, both parties will find themselves better equipped to move forward. Bitterness is left behind and peace abounds.

From Rage to Forgiveness (Part Ten)

Mercy: Violence is Not the Answer

Dressed in jeans, sneakers, a black jacket, and a light blue hoodie that was pulled up over his ginger hair, the young man, quite possibly a teenager, opened the door to the small shop that sold cell phones and accessories. He nervously brushed his hoodie back, then immediately jerked it forward as he approached the glass counter behind which a shopkeeper stood. Next to him was an assistant working on a phone.

When the young man asked about a phone, the shopkeeper took one out of the display case, handed it to him, said a few words, and then placed another one on top of the case. The young man also picked up the second phone, held both phones for a second or two, then turned and darted the few yards back to the door he had just entered through and yanked on its handle. 

The door didn’t budge.  

The thwarted would-be thief cried out as he realized that the security systems were now in place and the door had been locked remotely. Frustrated, and with no other options, he returned to the counter. The shopkeeper calmly held out his hand as the assistant, equally calmly, looked on. Appearing somewhat embarrassed, or perhaps unsure of what to do next, the would-be thief shoved the two phones into the shopkeeper's hand, claiming his mate made him do it. 

Agitated, he paced back and forth, then strode back to the locked door and rattled the handle before boldly asking to be let out. After exchanging a few more words, the shopkeeper told the man that, normally, they would call the police. No one spoke for a few seconds. Then, amazingly, the shopkeeper released the door. Realizing that the door was now unlocked, the young man bolted out of the shop. And was gone.

After the news of the attempted theft was made public, a spokesman for the shop said that while they do not condone theft, they understood that many people were currently experiencing financial hardships. If the young man was truly in need, he could contact the shop and they would try to help. The shopkeeper added, “To those on social media asking why we didn’t beat him up—violence is not the answer. The Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, said, ‘Be merciful to others and you will receive mercy.'"

The whole incident lasted barely ninety seconds. While the young would-be thief was agitated and unsure of himself, the shopkeeper and his assistant remained remarkably calm throughout. There was no change in their posture when the thief grabbed the second phone and ran for the door. They were equally unfazed when he approached the counter a second time, this time to return the phones.

Even though the young man had tried to steal from them, the two men were not angry with him. They even tried contacting him later on—if he was truly in need, they wanted to see if they could help. To those who did not understand why the two men did not beat up the would-be thief, they explained that they had been taught to have mercy. 

Mercy is defined as having two components: “compassion . . . shown to an offender” and “kindness extended to someone instead of strictness or severity.” 

The first part of the definition is compassion, the desire to alleviate the suffering of others. Initially, our compassion arises when we see someone suffering. We do what we can to help alleviate their immediate suffering. When these needs are met, we might see if there are longer-term ones that we could help with. 

The person the two men in our account offered to help was not an innocent young man, but someone who had tried to steal from them. Since everything happened so quickly, he was gone before they could talk to him and learn what his situation was. Perhaps they had wondered why he had done something so foolhardy. Might there really be a need? 

Thinking they might be able to help, they posted a notice online asking the young man to contact them. This reaching out to the young man is an excellent example of a problem we often have when we want to be compassionate. What can I do? Is it possible to help? Do I have the wisdom and skills to know how to do so effectively? And on a very personal level, am I doing the right thing?

Undeterred by any such questions, the men went ahead and did the best they could by offering to help if the young man was truly in need. Whether he learned of the offer and then contacted the shop was up to him. Up to his karma and his affinity with the two men. They had no control over whether the would-be thief would even respond. 

Like them, when we try to help another person, we do the best we can by calmly considering the situation and our possible options. If we believe we might be able to help, we could proceed the best we can in the hope that it will be enough to alleviate at least some of their suffering. If we are able to help, we should not feel proud of having done so. If we are not able to help, we should not feel disappointed or that we failed. What ensues will be due to the person’s karma.

The second part of the definition of mercy is kindness, which is the quality of sympathy and leniency instead of severity. We saw how the shopkeepers, instead of calling the police as they normally would have done or reacting more forcefully as some people thought they should have, released the door and let the young man go. 

In a time when more and more people are giving in to their baser instincts and responding to frustrating situations with anger, how did these two men respond with such leniency and goodwill? 

They had been taught that if a person wants to receive mercy and be forgiven, they must first be merciful and forgive others. Believing in this cause and effect, the men acted on their beliefs. Like the Amish mentioned in an earlier account, the shopkeepers chose forgiveness instead of revenge because forgiveness is a basic tenet of their respective religious teachings. 

Buddhists also believe in cause and effect because this is a basic tenet of our teachings. Quite simply, if people want certain results, they must first cultivate the causes. Good causes bring about good results, and bad causes bring about bad results. Where there is a result, there must have been a cause. And where there is a cause, there will always be a result. This is a universal truth of causality that knows no boundaries of time or place.

What else can help us better understand why things happen and how we can react?

We can consider what immediate conditions might have led the person to do what they did. In the case of the young man, was he genuinely in need? Or was there a very different reason. Perhaps it was a dare. Maybe an initiation ritual. Possibly it was copycat behavior. Something exciting, something tinged with danger. When the young man failed to get away with the phones, he said that his mate made him steal them. 

What about the causes that were less immediate but probably even more compelling? 

Cause and effect can help us understand why the attempted theft unfolded as it did. We can delve deeper into the why and the role a karmic connection likely played. We have formed countless relationships, positive and negative, in our innumerable past lives. We do not know the karmic connection of the people in the incident, only that this karmic principle holds true–where there is a result, there must have been a cause. 

Such an explanation tells why the young man would try to steal from this particular shopkeeper and his assistant. There was some karmic link to past deeds between them. Conditions were such that they encountered one another yet again in this lifetime. 

Whatever the causes, we know practicing mercy asks us to make the right decision, not the habitual, long-ingrained one that arises from anger. Calling the police would have been easy. It might have even been considered the right thing. Stopping the young man from attempting another robbery could prevent some future shopkeeper from being robbed. Arresting the young man might teach him not to steal anymore. Unfortunately, recidivism rates don’t support such reasoning, so that solution would all too likely not help the young man.

If the reason for calling the police, or beating up a potential thief, was to teach him a lesson, thus helping him to change his behavior, isn’t there a better way? How about by offering to help him? By giving him a chance to realize that he was about to be turned over to the police while his mate remained free and how he needed to choose his mates more carefully, not to mention not to steal.

The shopkeeper and assistant practiced mercy in two fundamental ways. 

First, through their compassion and kindness, and the letting go of any thought of retaliation, they offered the young man the opportunity to choose the direction he would head in. Would it be jail? Or a life where he wouldn't always be running away. Whether he accepted the opportunity to choose one or the other was now up to him. The two men had done all they could.

Second, but actually more importantly, through forgiveness, kindness, and letting go of retaliation, they had severed a victim-perpetrator enmity they shared with the young man. There would still be karmic retribution for what had already been done in lifetimes past, not just this one, but the link of animosity between them had been broken. 

Such is the power of forgiveness and mercy.