In the previous classes we have started our discussion
of justice by focusing on its definition or idea. Based on these discussions I
believe we can define justice as, a non-discriminatory, rational system that is
consistent and appropriately assigns punishments to crimes. Moreover, that justice
should disregard social and economical status and be applicable to all
citizens. If this definition holds true there are still gray areas and loop
holes that can be argued.
Our discussions of
Socrates should affect our outlook on justice and fill some of these gaps. Thrasymachus
raises a fine argument that unjust people are more profitable than the just,
because they will take advantage of the just people and that’s the way the
world works. Socrates agrees that there are some unjust individuals in the
world, but he denotes the idea of an entire community practicing unjust
behaviors. Without community wide justice then they would always quarrel with
each other due to lack of trust, instead of accomplishing their goals. Yet, he
neglects to mention how one person’s unjust act could affect the community. So
to continue this analysis of the term I would like to raise the question of “Is
there a cut off point for justice due to individual crimes or to what existent
should it be applied?”
For example, should incarcerated individuals
be allowed to practice the same basic freedoms as free citizens, such as the
first Amendment? John Walker Lindh is currently severing a 20 year sentence in
a special unit in a federal prison for aiding the Taliban. John Walker Lindh
was born in California, but was converted to the Muslim faith before his
departure to Afghanistan and meeting with Taliban leaders. He was arrested in
Afghanistan but due to special requests by his parents John was able to finish
his term in the United States. However, he is currently filing a lawsuit against
the warden and the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana to restore his rights
to pray five times a day against. The prison’s freedom of group pray was
restricted by the warden in 2007 due to safety reasons. Even though this prison
unit is already under special circumstances, such as restricted communication
to any party, is it just for the warden to disregard the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act? Does a man who committed terrorism against the United States
still have right to practice religious freedom while incarcerated in the United
States?
For more information
about the case
Stanton, I find it admirable that you would consider the inability to pray according to their faith's traditions an issue of injustice when a good portion of American's today will disagree with you. You've highlighted a matter of injustice present in Lindh's life after his imprisonment, but I would like to suggest that perhaps there is even MORE injustice in this situation.
ReplyDelete"Terrorism" is a completely subjective term; a rational American chose to leave this country to go to the Middle East to commit to a cause that he believed to be important. He chose his faith over his country, but did he not as an American have the freedom to do so? Is he not guaranteed the right to disagree with American policy? He is charged with "supplying services to a known terrorist organization," as defined by the US government. Taking in to consideration the extreme amount of bias seen in the semantics of the American media as well as the numerous half truths that reach American ears concerning the goings-on of the Middle East, I wonder if it is in fact just for this man to be imprisoned at all.
(Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that I agree with his decisions or actions, simply that we might take time to consider the circumstances and motives for his imprisonment in terms of justice.)
I believe that all US citizens have the same rights whether they are incarcerated or not. But i also understand the logic behind banning the prayer in this particular jail. If the man is known to have commited terrorism and he performs his muslim rituals he could become targeted by other inmates and potentially killed. The ban can be strictly for safety we do not know. With that said i believe the man still has a right to do as he believes.
DeleteI believe that on a whole the wardens decision was more just, as it would do more to prevent fights and riots therefor keeping the jail "more safe." But on an individual basis it is unjust to have one's rights taken away