Rattle, Rattle--Uh Oh, Another Brain Dump
As usual, I have a word stuck in my head. I always get words stuck in my head. Words are so fun to use when writing; you can mix them, match them, move them around, toss them up and catch them or just let them fall where they will, you can wiggle them and shake them and add/subtract letters and make them do all sort of crazy tricks. Several problems do arise, however, when one uses the written word; inflection is almost impossible to reflect on paper, so sarcasm is often wasted in written conversation unless the reader already knows that such was the intent.
Also, meaning: quite often, we write something, knowing full well what we mean when we used such and such a word, only to find the reader has assigned a completely different meaning. So, when we write, we often put a bit more thought into what we are saying, whereas in speech we tend to soldier on, assuming our listener understands the words we use the same way we do. This can occasionally lead to surprise misunderstandings and funny encounters, up to and including wars between nations, which, of course, aren't too funny.
Unless you are of a nation neither involved nor affected. There can be humor there. Ok, dark, sometimes...but here we go again, it's all in how we take it.
The word rattling around inside my diseased brain the last few days is 'justice'. For such a simple sounding word, one easily written AND spoken, this is one complicated little fella. Even the dictionary has a little trouble with it. Let's see what Mirriam-Webster has to say:
Also, meaning: quite often, we write something, knowing full well what we mean when we used such and such a word, only to find the reader has assigned a completely different meaning. So, when we write, we often put a bit more thought into what we are saying, whereas in speech we tend to soldier on, assuming our listener understands the words we use the same way we do. This can occasionally lead to surprise misunderstandings and funny encounters, up to and including wars between nations, which, of course, aren't too funny.
Unless you are of a nation neither involved nor affected. There can be humor there. Ok, dark, sometimes...but here we go again, it's all in how we take it.
The word rattling around inside my diseased brain the last few days is 'justice'. For such a simple sounding word, one easily written AND spoken, this is one complicated little fella. Even the dictionary has a little trouble with it. Let's see what Mirriam-Webster has to say:
Definition of justice
1 a
: the maintenance or administration of what is just
especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the
assignment of merited rewards or punishments
- meting out justice
- social justice
c
: the administration of law
- a fugitive from justice
- a system of justice
2 a
: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair
- questioned the justice of the their decision
b (1)
: the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action
c
: the quality of conforming to law
3
: conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness
Whew!! Now, that be a word, my friends!! We can use it in so many, many ways!! Now, I marvel at these type of words. I call them 'concept' words. Even their very dictionary definition is comprised of other, descriptive, concept words. As a title, it is very easy to use: Chief Justice, or Justice Marshall, we know it refers to a judge. Pretty clear. ( Well, unless you are like me, where the word judge even implies a concept...). In other uses, it rather opens up a world of interpretations.
For example: What is a 'just cause'? For me, it might be simply something I got involved in 'just cause' I was bored, or, nearby. See? Words can be fun. They can also be very misinterpreted...even by those who profess, by standing or position, to be the interpreters.
So, yes, I call 'justice' a concept word. Why would I do that? What makes it conceptual? Doesn't the definition seem to make it's use fairly clear? Yes, it does. But, take for example, 2 a; the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. Now, we can use the term correctly in speaking of such action; however, what one person describes as 'just' may not be what the next person defines it as. Let me see if I can come up with a example.
One example might be: A society creates laws, as it must to be a orderly society. Laws can cover a myriad of offenses, which create many subtexts, defining the severity of a offense. Such as, theft. Now, theft, as all know, is against the law. And it should be. Here, of course, we enter into the realm of impartial, and fair. The two do not necessarily hold hands when out for a drink, you see. One can be impartial, yet not fair, and one can be fair, yet, not impartial. So, here we enter our first conceptual factor of justice. Someone must decide, first, how severe was the theft? A determination may need be made as to whether the theft was caused by circumstances beyond the accuseds' control. But to many, the fact remains, the crime was theft.
Now, say, the penalty for theft is 15 to 20 years in prison. Just theft, period. Now, regardless of what level of theft it was, many feel this penalty is sufficient, and the needs of justice are met. In other words, that is a just sentence. But, is it, really? Let's focus in our example as follows:
The accused is alleged to have stolen over $100 worth of edible groceries from a grocery store. ( I won't discuss the justice of pricing...). Now, in the course of the arrest, it is revealed the accused has never been arrested or suspected of any serious crime prior. It is further revealed the accused has a family. Perhaps with small children. Through no fault of his own, he had lost a job he had held for 15 years earlier that year, and as a result, lost his home, was denied any benefits, and was barely able even now to help put a roof over his family's heads. No extra for food, clothes, utilities---you get the picture. They hadn't eaten for 48 hours. In desperation, he attempted to shoplift some food for himself and his family. Now---he is tried, found guilty, and now is the time to decide punishment.
Attorneys representing the grocery chain recommend 15 years...hey, it's theft, the nasty man stole our merchandise ( sure, we were selling it at 70% profit, but that isn't a crime, that's BUSINESS! ). They feel that that sentence is just; i.e., justice will be served. But...I might feel differently. So might others. Under the definition of justice, well, yes, there it is. But most anyone would recognize; that is not justice, that is simply greed and revenge. So, then, the system must decide, well, should we punish the offender at all, and if we do, what would be just? See, here is where I say the term, the word, is a concept word. Say, the minimum for said crime is 5 years, not 15. Ok, is that just? Some might say yes. I would say no. Our definition of what is just and fair in this case differs. Does not mean I do not believe there should be no punishment at all; that sends the wrong message. As to what I feel might be just in such a case is irrelevant, since the decision would never be up to me.
So, conceptual words. Justice. Fair. Correct. Righteous. ( That last one I'd prefer to see removed as a word altogether; I simply don't believe it applies to any thing or one. ). Correct should only be used as a way to score answers in a quiz. Impartial is misleading. No living being is truly impartial. We are all partial to SOMEthing! Justice, though, is too important a concept to defined by boundaries. Take, for instance, the Death Penalty. ( Oh, yeah, did anyone expect me to finish this without bringing THAT up? ).
Death Penalty. Some areas still use it. They consider it a just and fitting punishment for the most horrendous crimes, crimes in which lives were lost, and any shred of decency never displayed. It is supposed to be used as a last resort, when no other punishment seems fitting, and the accused is deemed simply too dangerous to be allowed to live. Which certainly seems just, and fitting. Even though it has never really been proven effective as a deterrent; there will be more such crimes committed, more people who hold no value with human life. I even am in favor of it, in some cases. Certainly, it is a tool for justice.
Or, is it? If the law states that it is a capital offense ( death penalty a option as punishment ) because the accused took the life or lives of other persons, then, murder is a crime. That is the base foundation for the law. Okay, agreed. Now, the judge ( in some case, a jury ) sentences the accused to death. Ok, the law provides that as a possible punishment. Now. Who is going to carry out that sentence? That is important. Why? Because it requires a otherwise possibly violation free human being to actually commit the crime of murder upon another human being. Murder is a capital offense. Getting dizzy yet?
Many may say, heck, I'LL throw the switch/administer the injection/fire the bullet! My conscience is clear!! ( I've been one of those persons who say that...). Which is fine, right? Clear conscience. Except. Perhaps the person you are killing committed those crimes with a clear conscience. They are still guilty. Under the law, then, now, so are you. The executioner is now a murderer. Murder is against the law. Uh Oh. This could get monotonous. Even if you think, hey, it isn't ONE person; society carried that sentence out; hmmm, so, now, should society be charged with and tried for murder? Hey, it's the LAW, man. Break the law, you're a criminal! Surrender, all of you!
Dog chases tail. If we humans still had tails, we'd chase them. We'd have to. Until such time as we finally woke up, discovered there are humane alternatives, and carried our tails proudly and decently. It's a concept. We have words. Be proud that we do, and be educated enough to reason their meanings, gauge their uses, and apply them in a humanely conceptual way.
Make it this far? Thank you if you have, for reading my rambling thoughts. I know this was a boring one; I just needed to get it out of my head. I am old enough now, there is very little space left in there, and one word rattling around without release causes me no end of grief. I could use a good, healthy dose of George Carlin, or a episode of Psych, or QI. Laughter, the best medicine. Can also be a really good punishment for some. I'll just leave that there. Til next time!
Whew!! Now, that be a word, my friends!! We can use it in so many, many ways!! Now, I marvel at these type of words. I call them 'concept' words. Even their very dictionary definition is comprised of other, descriptive, concept words. As a title, it is very easy to use: Chief Justice, or Justice Marshall, we know it refers to a judge. Pretty clear. ( Well, unless you are like me, where the word judge even implies a concept...). In other uses, it rather opens up a world of interpretations.
For example: What is a 'just cause'? For me, it might be simply something I got involved in 'just cause' I was bored, or, nearby. See? Words can be fun. They can also be very misinterpreted...even by those who profess, by standing or position, to be the interpreters.
So, yes, I call 'justice' a concept word. Why would I do that? What makes it conceptual? Doesn't the definition seem to make it's use fairly clear? Yes, it does. But, take for example, 2 a; the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. Now, we can use the term correctly in speaking of such action; however, what one person describes as 'just' may not be what the next person defines it as. Let me see if I can come up with a example.
One example might be: A society creates laws, as it must to be a orderly society. Laws can cover a myriad of offenses, which create many subtexts, defining the severity of a offense. Such as, theft. Now, theft, as all know, is against the law. And it should be. Here, of course, we enter into the realm of impartial, and fair. The two do not necessarily hold hands when out for a drink, you see. One can be impartial, yet not fair, and one can be fair, yet, not impartial. So, here we enter our first conceptual factor of justice. Someone must decide, first, how severe was the theft? A determination may need be made as to whether the theft was caused by circumstances beyond the accuseds' control. But to many, the fact remains, the crime was theft.
Now, say, the penalty for theft is 15 to 20 years in prison. Just theft, period. Now, regardless of what level of theft it was, many feel this penalty is sufficient, and the needs of justice are met. In other words, that is a just sentence. But, is it, really? Let's focus in our example as follows:
The accused is alleged to have stolen over $100 worth of edible groceries from a grocery store. ( I won't discuss the justice of pricing...). Now, in the course of the arrest, it is revealed the accused has never been arrested or suspected of any serious crime prior. It is further revealed the accused has a family. Perhaps with small children. Through no fault of his own, he had lost a job he had held for 15 years earlier that year, and as a result, lost his home, was denied any benefits, and was barely able even now to help put a roof over his family's heads. No extra for food, clothes, utilities---you get the picture. They hadn't eaten for 48 hours. In desperation, he attempted to shoplift some food for himself and his family. Now---he is tried, found guilty, and now is the time to decide punishment.
Attorneys representing the grocery chain recommend 15 years...hey, it's theft, the nasty man stole our merchandise ( sure, we were selling it at 70% profit, but that isn't a crime, that's BUSINESS! ). They feel that that sentence is just; i.e., justice will be served. But...I might feel differently. So might others. Under the definition of justice, well, yes, there it is. But most anyone would recognize; that is not justice, that is simply greed and revenge. So, then, the system must decide, well, should we punish the offender at all, and if we do, what would be just? See, here is where I say the term, the word, is a concept word. Say, the minimum for said crime is 5 years, not 15. Ok, is that just? Some might say yes. I would say no. Our definition of what is just and fair in this case differs. Does not mean I do not believe there should be no punishment at all; that sends the wrong message. As to what I feel might be just in such a case is irrelevant, since the decision would never be up to me.
So, conceptual words. Justice. Fair. Correct. Righteous. ( That last one I'd prefer to see removed as a word altogether; I simply don't believe it applies to any thing or one. ). Correct should only be used as a way to score answers in a quiz. Impartial is misleading. No living being is truly impartial. We are all partial to SOMEthing! Justice, though, is too important a concept to defined by boundaries. Take, for instance, the Death Penalty. ( Oh, yeah, did anyone expect me to finish this without bringing THAT up? ).
Death Penalty. Some areas still use it. They consider it a just and fitting punishment for the most horrendous crimes, crimes in which lives were lost, and any shred of decency never displayed. It is supposed to be used as a last resort, when no other punishment seems fitting, and the accused is deemed simply too dangerous to be allowed to live. Which certainly seems just, and fitting. Even though it has never really been proven effective as a deterrent; there will be more such crimes committed, more people who hold no value with human life. I even am in favor of it, in some cases. Certainly, it is a tool for justice.
Or, is it? If the law states that it is a capital offense ( death penalty a option as punishment ) because the accused took the life or lives of other persons, then, murder is a crime. That is the base foundation for the law. Okay, agreed. Now, the judge ( in some case, a jury ) sentences the accused to death. Ok, the law provides that as a possible punishment. Now. Who is going to carry out that sentence? That is important. Why? Because it requires a otherwise possibly violation free human being to actually commit the crime of murder upon another human being. Murder is a capital offense. Getting dizzy yet?
Many may say, heck, I'LL throw the switch/administer the injection/fire the bullet! My conscience is clear!! ( I've been one of those persons who say that...). Which is fine, right? Clear conscience. Except. Perhaps the person you are killing committed those crimes with a clear conscience. They are still guilty. Under the law, then, now, so are you. The executioner is now a murderer. Murder is against the law. Uh Oh. This could get monotonous. Even if you think, hey, it isn't ONE person; society carried that sentence out; hmmm, so, now, should society be charged with and tried for murder? Hey, it's the LAW, man. Break the law, you're a criminal! Surrender, all of you!
Dog chases tail. If we humans still had tails, we'd chase them. We'd have to. Until such time as we finally woke up, discovered there are humane alternatives, and carried our tails proudly and decently. It's a concept. We have words. Be proud that we do, and be educated enough to reason their meanings, gauge their uses, and apply them in a humanely conceptual way.
Make it this far? Thank you if you have, for reading my rambling thoughts. I know this was a boring one; I just needed to get it out of my head. I am old enough now, there is very little space left in there, and one word rattling around without release causes me no end of grief. I could use a good, healthy dose of George Carlin, or a episode of Psych, or QI. Laughter, the best medicine. Can also be a really good punishment for some. I'll just leave that there. Til next time!
Comments