Justice As A Concept

My friend Hans from Sweden is visiting and he has indulged me in quite a few wonderful conversations. One that we went over a couple times is out perhaps different views of justice. It started out with our seeing a mug sketch of a guy who was wanted for rape, to which I remarked that rape is about power, not sex. Hans had a difficult time agreeing with this--he wanted me to conceed that rape is, at least in part, about sex. I realized that it may not e that I disagree but more that I am looking at rape as a sociological phenomenon, and am more concerned with what we could do to stop rape than really if it may have, for some rapists, a sexual component.   Then, though, you have to get onto what, exactly, "sexual" means--does it simply mean something that could produce offspring? Or is there a more relational definition--that it is more about, perhaps, how two (or more) people have an interaction. What makes something sex? This is an interesting and debatable question all in itself, and I suspect there is a wide range of definitions people use. Vaginal sex is the most straight-forward, but (pun!) very heteronormative, because it requires one man and one woman and if you use the next suggestion, that sex is based upon whether one or more people has an orgasm, it is problematic for women, who often do not have orgasms during vaginal sex. Blah blah blah, I'm getting onto a tangent here. But point being, what would it exactly mean to say that rape is "about sex" some or all of the time? Sure, rape usually involves activities we generally consider sexual, but I do not wish to taint sex with rape. I'm sure I'll write about this more in-depth at a later time. 

Moving on, back to justice. Our conversation about rape diverted towards what to do about it. At this point, I argued that I did not believe in justice (a bit unfair, I know) and that I would prefer to heal all involved (since I believe rape is about power, and that the rapist needs help instead of us looking down on him, or her). Context: Hans is a lawyer. His father is cheif of police. He is a strong proponent of justice. 

In a later conversation with a friend of his who is also Swedish (and a lawyer), I realized that perhaps our disagreement had something to do with a difference in our cultural upbringing and more specifically regarding the ideas we have about what justice means and looks like. To me, justice is about vengence. It is about getting even. I don't believe you really CAN "make up" for a crime committed, and moreover, I disagree that punishment deters future criminal acts. I prefer prevention. I generally feel this way, not just about crime, but health and disaster, etc. It is why I so highly value understanding why things happen, what motivates people. Not all things are preventable, but much of the world's "bad stuff" is, I believe. Anyway, Hans argued that you can't just let people get away with things. This, I must say, I do agree with (I think that's with a resounding "duh" also). But I think we should focus on prevention and on understanding why someone committed a crime and what would prevent them from perpetrating another. To me, this is the goal of "punishment". It is not about retribution, beause I don't think retribution is pragmatic. It doesn't make the world a better place. That should be, I believe, the goal of the justice system--to better the world by making changes that cut down on crimes committed. 

So those are just some thoughts...btw, I typed this on my phone while waiting "on" line (as they say in New York instead of in line) for my driver's license!