From First Things in 2011. I concur. Mercy cannot exist without justice. One guilt and proper consequence have been established, then we can be merciful. Yet without that there is only license. A judge can halve a sentence or even suspend one, and a governor can pardon one, but if there is no possibility of even declaring guilt, why have a court at all?
Related, perhaps, is that the law has to exist to protect the criminal. The mob is notoriously dangerous and unjust. It learns from experience that crafting some sort of agreed-upon regulation is better in the long run. When that happens, it is no longer a mob but a social contract.
3 comments:
"Forgiveness in its deepest sense is [b]y definition, it is something that can be done only rarely without undermining the basis on which it rests and without creating an entirely different set of moral expectations."
Yes, but perhaps undermining the basis of our expectations was the point. I won't quote Bible verses to you, who doubtless knows it better than I do myself. There is a clear challenge intended to our moral assumptions in the divine command to forgiveness, I think.
And the original purpose for "An eye for an eye" was to limit retribution. No more than in proportion to the offense. Our natural tendency in seeking retribution is not parity but escalation.
After watching a mob up close for two years, I also think it’s important to note that mobs are cowards. They have a reputation for unthinking rage, but they end up quite targeted at those least able to withstand them.
Post a Comment