Because the poem points out that the illusion of a society that existed understood the value of restitution vs. retribution is just that: an illusion. In that case, you should rather ask why you're using a set of myths to justify a set of values that never existed, and certainly are problematic in the modern world as well? Why use these fictions in order to promote a current ideology? If the idea has merit, let's allow it to stand on it's own two feet, rather than create some a-historical ideology based in a version of the past that is created NOT out of any historical reality, but out of a desire to represent the modern world as unethical, fallen, and impure as compared to some earlier, halcyon past.ruckman101 wrote:I suggested only restorative justice was the model prior to the British embracing and institutionalizing the retributive model and declaring all crimes as against the state? Oops, if that's the case, it certainly wasn't my intent.
Certainly models of justice have been debated from the moment of the first crime committed. My intent was to point out that the restorative model has been around and has a history of application, true, in primarily indigenous, tribal cultures including many original native american cultures of North America. You know, those considered "primitive" by invading "western" cultures who brought a retributive model to bear and all of the other fantastic advantages the the European "advanced" culture.
The restorative model is essentially of the tribal council, or circle model. All parties involved, which included the community, were brought to the circle and how to most appropriately address and resolve the transgressions were brought to discussion.
It strikes me as much more humane, rather than perpetuating violence by state sanctioned lynchings regardless of the wishes of the parties involved, which strikes me as barbaric.
Absolutely there are many barbaric justice models throughout history. To define a crime as against the state grants power from the people to the rulers. What other tipping of the balance of powers do the other retributive models grant, and to who? To what end?
The Restorative Justice model was brought to my attention when a victim interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now cited it as an alternative model that resonated with him as an alternative to the death penalty, a response that satisfied his opposition to the death penalty, despite the murder of his grandfather, and then years later, his daughter.
I'm unclear why an epic poem is cited as an argument of the validity of state sanctioned lynchings. Isn't the "eye for an eye" model obviously an example of the retributive model? We will all be blind. Now that strikes me as a myopic view.
neal
And because the poem is itself a meditation on the nature of what makes a good ruler in the Anglo-Saxon period; what must a ruler do? What are his obligations? How does he serve justice? These are all topics that the poem takes on in direct ways, giving us a historical insight into the nature of how that society functioned. One specific example is that Beowulf is given an extended speaking part in which he talks about how the restitutive nature of AS society leads inevitably to a society-wide conflict; weregild as a concept (an attempt at restitutive justice) fails ultimately because restitution alone doesn't satisfy the human condition. Anger remains, hatred simmers, and finally old arguments break out anew, plunging not just the individuals or even clans, but whole societies into war, chaos, and perhaps destruction.
I'm not against restitution by any means; as I said above, we overuse punishment, and underuse training/teaching. That doesn't absolve us, though, from dealing with the nastier versions of humanity in a way that makes us all safer, whatever the so-called "ethics" of the situation are. Ethics are not real, nor are they even meaningful; they change from place to place, time to time, people to people. Instead, let us ask "What is the greatest good, to the most people?" Because that answer frees us from the logical fallacies that ethics give rise to; because that enables us to cross those boundaries of place, time and culture more easily and more convincingly.
If you wish, take what I said this way: I've already asserted that I support your efforts to be more radical; it is my wish that I might challenge you to sharpen your thinking and hone your arguments so that when you encounter those who would bar your way, you might win them over through your careful use of the rhetorical tools at your disposal, rather than have your otherwise sane and humanist arguments swept aside due to a secondary error, assumption or flaw in your argument.
Best,
Michael L
