Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 4.20

“Then from this,” said she, “and other causes which rest upon the same foundation, it is plain that, since baseness makes men more miserable by its own nature, the misery is brought not to the sufferer of an injustice, but to the doer thereof.

“But the speakers in law-courts take the opposite course: they try to excite the pity of the judges for those who have suffered any heavy or bitter wrong; but more justly their pity would be due to those who have committed the wrong.

“These guilty men ought to be brought, by accusers kindly rather than angry, to justice, as patients to a doctor, that their disease of crime may be checked by punishment. Under such an arrangement the occupation of advocates for defense would either come to a complete standstill, or if it seemed more to the advantage of mankind, it might turn to the work of prosecution.

“And if the wicked too themselves might by some device look on virtue left behind them, and if they could see that they would lay aside the squalor of vice by the pain of punishment, and that they would gain the compensation of achieving virtue again, they would no longer hold it punishment, but would refuse the aid of advocates for their defense, and would entrust themselves unreservedly to their accusers and their judges.

“In this way there would be no place left for hatred among wise men. For who but the most foolish would hate good men? And there is no cause to hate bad men. Vice is as a disease of the mind, just as feebleness shows ill health in the body. As, then, we should never think that those, who are sick in the body, deserve hatred, so are those, whose minds are oppressed by a fiercer disease than feebleness, namely wickedness, much more worthy of pity than of persecution.”

—from Book 4, Prose 4

I am wary of presenting a passage like this, because it will all soon degrade into a fight about the petty politics of justice. One man will tell me that we are too easy on criminals, that we must punish them more severely. Another man will tell me that we have no heart, that we must reform rather than inflict any suffering.

The one man says he loves the victim, and demands a harsh repayment from the offender. The other man says he loves the offender, and demands complete forgiveness from the victim.

And these two combatants will duke it out, and the hatred they have for one another will overshadow the original question. It will become a battle of the tribes, the red versus the blue in modern America, or the blue versus the green in Constantinople, or the green Drazi versus the purple Drazi on Babylon 5.

The limitations of labels will become apparent when we look beyond the party lines, and we turn instead to a deeper philosophy. Yes, embrace both punishment and compassion. Be just to them all, and love them all, because any justice or love that is preferential will never be justice or love at all. There can be no opposition here, but only a harmony between both. Justice is an expression of love, and love is the source of justice.

Pay the price that you must pay, balance out those scales, and then there is a chance for both compensation and reformation. Give back what you have unjustly taken, and then you have the opportunity to both make the wrong right and to redeem yourself. Might the punishment need to be harsh? Perhaps. Must the motive always be love? Absolutely.

If I have done wrong it is from my own choice, but my vice is still a sickness of ignorance and poor habits. A sick man requires a doctor, not another man who inflicts another round of hatred upon him. Will the cure be painful? It most often is. Will it be worth the cost? Most certainly.

Me versus you? No. All of us together? Yes.

Lawyers and judges get a bad rap, but not because there is anything wrong with the practice of law itself. There is, rather, something wrong with the way a good number of them go about interpreting the law. Many assume that it must be confrontational, and from manipulating this confrontation they make their own profits, winning their ill-gained fame and fortune.

One man wins, and another man loses; it never occurs to them that all men should win. This side has succeeded, and that side has failed; it never occurs to them all sides can succeed.

How might I help a wicked fellow come to recognize what he has done, and who he might still become? How might I help a poor fellow, who has been dragged in the dirt, recognize that he can still reach out a merciful hand? That is justice, as Nature intended.

It is a difficult goal, but it is not an impossible one. It is far less ridiculous than assuming we can make life better for one half by destroying the other half.

My resentment comes from thinking I have been wronged, and my hatred comes from lashing out against that perceived wrong. Now I am no better than what I condemn. Nature, and Nature’s God, do their work by healing, not by condemnation.

Bring out physicians for the soul, not executioners of the spirit.

Written in 11/2015