Defining the Meaning and Purpose of Justice, Law, and Criminal Justice: A Hermeneutical Judeo-Christian Biblical Perspective
Volume
Defining the Meaning and Purpose of Justice, Law, and Criminal Justice: A Hermeneutical Judeo- Christian Biblical Perspective
Arthur H. Garrison
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcls Recommended Citation
ARTHUR H. GARRISON†
† Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at Kutztown University. Dr. Garrison
received a B.A. Political Science from Kutztown University, a M.S. Criminal Justice
from West Chester University, and a Doctor of Law and Policy from Northeastern
University. Dr. Garrison is the author of SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE IN TIMES
OF NATIONAL CRISIS, TERRORISM, AND WAR: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (2011).
This Article seeks to review the purpose and definition of
justice and the law from a unique perspective. It asserts that the
purpose and definition of justice and the law can be determined
by the utilization of literal, grammatical, historical, and
contextual hermeneutic principles on the biblical text. The
uniqueness of this approach is that the Bible will be used as an
exclusive source for determining the definition, purpose, and
operation of justice and the law.
Justice has been defined various ways through the
development of political, social, economic, philosophical, and
religious literature over the centuries. Justice has been defined
as a process as well as an outcome. The defining of justice
necessarily requires defining the meaning and purpose of the
law. Although both concepts are similar in scope, they are
different in both purpose and operation. The law is defined by
what it does and what it requires, while justice is defined in
normative terms. Justice, in subjective terms, is defined by what
ought to be or what should happen—whether the result is fair.
The distinction between the operation and implementation of the
two has demonstrated that what is required by the law is not
always just and that which is just may not always be lawful. A
distinction between law and justice was debated in the movie
Exodus.
In the 1960 movie Exodus, the character Ari Ben Canaan, a
senior operative of the Haganah, debates the differing
approaches to forcing the British out of Palestine in order to form
the state of Israel with his uncle Akiva, who is the head of the
Irgun. The movie portrays the difference between the two
organizations as the Irgun utilizing acts of violence and bombing
while the Haganah uses diplomacy to achieve their shared goal.2
1 2 Timothy 3:16 (NKJV).
2 For discussion on the history of these two Jewish resistance (terrorist)
organizations, see generally Donald Neff, Hamas: A Pale Image of the Jewish Irgun
and Lehi Gangs, WASHINGTON REP. ON MIDDLE E. AFF., May/June 2006; Arthur H.
Garrison, Defining Terrorism: Philosophy of the Bomb, Propaganda by Deed and
Change Through Fear and Violence, 17 CRIM. JUST. STUD. 259 (2004); Arthur H.
Garrison, Terrorism: The Nature of Its History, 16 CRIM. JUST. STUD. 39 (2003);
In their meeting, their debate shifts from tactics to whether the
Jews receiving Palestine would be a just result:
[Ari:] I think these bombings and these killings hurt us with the
United Nations. A year ago we had the respect of the whole
world. Now, when they read about us, it’s nothing but terror
and violence.
[Akiva:] It’s not the first time this happens in history. I don’t
know of one nation, whether existing now or in the past that
was not born in violence. Terror, violence, death. They are the
midwives who bring free nations into this world and
compromisers like the Haganah produce only abortions.
. . . .
[Ari:] How can we ask the UN for a just decision when we keep
on blowing up things like a bunch of anarchists!
[Akiva:] You have just used the words “a just decision.” May I
tell you something? Firstly, justice itself is an abstraction.
Completely devoid of reality. Secondly, to speak of justice and
Jews in the same breath is a logical absurdity. Thirdly, one can
argue the justice of Arab claims on Palestine just as one can
argue the justice of Jewish claims. Fourthly, no one can say the
Jews have not had more than their share of injustice these past
ten years. I therefore say, fifthly, let the next injustice work
against somebody else for a change.3
Akiva asserts that justice, as a concept, has no real meaning
outside of personal perspective. In other words, is justice a
subjective and individual concept? Is Akiva correct that justice
does not have an objective or intrinsic meaning, but rather
justice and injustice are defined by who wins and who loses? Is
Akiva right that justice is nothing but an abstraction? Is there
an objective meaning of justice to which all results are measured
by?
The academic and philosophical literature of western
Christian thought and the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition is a
rich one dating back to the great minds of the Enlightenment
David A. Charters, Eyes of the Underground: Jewish Insurgent Intelligence in
Palestine, 1945–47, 13 INTELLIGENCE AND NAT’L SECURITY 163 (1998); James L.
(...truncated)