whose justice is it anyway?

What comes to mind when you hear the word “justice”?

When we asked people around us this question over a few weeks, almost everyone responded with an idea that related to the courtroom: Courtroom dramas were named, black robes were a constant, the word “judgment” came up every so often, and interestingly, “punishment.” Wherever the conversation went deeper, it was clear that people believed that the idea of justice involved punishing a wrongdoer.

But what about the one who was wronged? And what of the relationship – especially if it was one that the people involved cared about preserving with amity and care, even if the nature of the relationship changed?

Mainstream justice systems are fundamentally adversarial, combative even. Two sides to a dispute are brought face to face. They present their arguments, submit evidence, and counter each other’s arguments. Either a judge and/or a jury evaluates their contentions, and makes a determination on the outcome of the case. The judge/jury does not interfere beyond observing and listening to the arguments – their role culminates in making a decision on the arguments presented. Technicalities and legal smarts can be cleverly used to wiggle out of accountability.

The outcome is usually a function of the case constructed, presented, and argued before the judge or jury – and is almost always a zero sum game. Someone wins. Someone loses. The relationship is broken. The systemic factors that produced the conflict remain unaddressed. The loop continues. A backlog of cases accumulates. No one stops to pay attention to the needs of the one who faced the harm. No one stops to pay attention to the structural and systemic factors that enabled the harm.

Where the buck stops

No one that produces harm should escape accountability. But what we do in holding them accountable matters. Some arguments suggest that punishments send a message that wrongdoing is not tolerated and counter the suffering faced by the one harmed. However, punishing another has little to nothing to do with alleviating the harm one faced. Focusing heavily on carceral outcomes does little for survivors of violence – and they are often left to their defences and means to address their healing, which can come at a heavy cost, monetary and otherwise. This hyperfocus on the perpetrator often comes at the cost of support for the survivor. On many occasions, this becomes a major reason a survivor is forced to give up pursuing justice while focusing on surviving, instead. 

If the focus was on repair following harm, the approach to justice would look very different. This is not to mean that violence is condoned or sidelined. Punishments and retributive outcomes are inherently limited. Some may argue that punishments have a corrective effect for the offender and deter others who might like to offend in the same way: And yet, in this paradigm, the institution tends to reduce a person to a project. It does not take into account the systemic and structural factors that may motivate the production of harm, and it does not work to check these sites of power.

Expanding our ideas of justice

The idea of justice is not one-size-fits-all. Nothing about justice is mathematical, and yet it is reduced to a formula: No matter the nature of the issue, from a violating a contract to a violence, the approach to justice is the same. You file a case, the court applies the law, the lawyers flex their legal muscle. The outcome is a function of technicality. What might it take to strive to do justice by focusing on the one who faced harm first? 

A simple step we can start with is to recognize what the harm looked like, what it caused, where it was felt, and what the person so impacted feels might be the right solution to their situation. Centering the agency of the person who faced harm is fundamental to recognizing that justice is intended to support their needs – rather than to reduce them to being about “whathappenedtothem.” Framing pathways to secure that redress follows – through mediation, negotiation, conciliation, and in some cases, with the help of a humane lawyer, to some degree, even courthouses. It is also useful, however, to pay attention to the structural and systemic factors that enable and produce harm.