Library:The Mad Justice

This journal entry by Rabbit is part of the.

Fragment from "The Mad Justice" Section of the Journal of Sir Richard Hare
(circa 700 Years before the Cataclysm)

"How measure we the scales of fairness equally for all?" — question posed by the ancient philosopher Oryctolagus Cuniculus

I find myself at odds trying to determine a basis for fairness and equality when applying Justice to the guilty, and ensuring Justice for their victims. How does one ensure that equal measure is given to two criminals who have committed the exact same crime, but with varying consequences to their victims?

Suppose each thief has stolen 100 pieces of gold, one from a rich man who will surely never miss the coin, and the other from a now-destitute father trying to raise his two children alone for whom 100 pieces of gold was his entire life savings. How, then, do we ensure equal Justice for each victim and fair punishment for each criminal?

Would Justice be served equally if each criminal were punished the same? Would each victim feel Justice in fair measure? One could argue that if each victim had their money returned to him — equal compensation for having been the victim of the same crime — then sentencing the same punishment to each criminal could be carried out with no fear of having wronged either victim. Yet, then, one may ask how each victim suffered between the time of the theft and receiving their compensation, for surely the rich man fared better.

And what of the compensation? Who shall pay it? Shall it be assumed that every time such a case comes up, the criminal will not have spent the coin? Or shall the society be made to reimburse the victims — that is to say, shall society have to pay for the criminal's debt? For this raises the question of Justice once more. If society pays the debt, then instead of the criminal stealing from only one victim, we have allowed the criminal to steal from everyone. And while 100 gold coins taken from a society of 100 people is less devastating than taking 100 gold from a poor man, the crime of theft still exists. And speaking in theory, we have now made the criminal guilty of stealing from 100 people. Is this a worse crime than stealing from one man? How do we judge: by the amount of coin stolen, or the number of victims?

Perhaps the day will come when others wiser than I may happen upon this journal, and I pray this question does not drive them as mad as it has driven me.

Trivia

 * The Mad Justice was a winner of the Scholars of Novia's "Fragments from the Library of Deekka the Druidess" contest.