Defining the Meaning and Purpose of Justice, Law, and Criminal Justice: A Hermeneutical Judeo-Christian Biblical Perspective

Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, Mar 2017

By Arthur H. Garrison, Published on 03/30/17

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=jcls

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)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=jcls

Arthur H. Garrison. Defining the Meaning and Purpose of Justice, Law, and Criminal Justice: A Hermeneutical Judeo-Christian Biblical Perspective, Journal of Catholic Legal Studies, 2017, Volume 55, Issue 1,