Quickfire Debate: Justice, Retribution, and Forgiveness

Hello to everyone who reads this! After PMing with bsh1, I've confirmed we're both online and ready to go before accepting this debate. Thanks to bsh1 for this debate, and I look forward to an interesting exchange of viewpoints.IntroductionSo, the resolution we're considering is whether justice can usually be obtained without forgiveness. I, of course, accept the R1 definiions. Indeed, they're central to my case. We are considering criminal acts. Justice, here, is coming from society and the justice system--as flawed and imperfect as those often are. Justice is giving what's due. And that means the question is whether anyone is ever "owed" forgiveness, and whether a victim can be faulted as being unjust for withholding that forgiveness. Crimes GenerallyMany crimes have no "victim" per se--they're crimes against society at large. Crimes like drugs, public order, and tax evasion, to name some, don't have a specific victim who could forgive the criminal. Crimes like murder preclude the possibility of the victim's forgiveness. Some basic statistics aggregated by a relatively biased source (but originally provided by bjs.gov) indicate that, as of 2011, more than 80% of the US federal prison population consists of victimless crimes such as drugs or public-order offenses [1]. Unless justice can't be obtained in those cases, it's obvious that generally speaking forgiveness of the victim is not necessary for justice to be obtained. While I welcome Con to contest those statistics, I don't want to play a semantics game here, I'm not trying to win on a "most crimes don't have a victim" argument. The point I'm trying to make is that in order for it to generally be the case that forgiveness is necessary to obtain justice, we'd have to say that crimes with a victim require forgiveness in order to obtain justice, and we'd have to have some basis for that assertion. Forgiveness Is Irrelevant to JusticeI argue that forgiveness is irrelevant to justice. To be sure, forgiveness is a moral good. We should encourage forgiveness. But with Justice we're talking about obligation. Many things are moral goods, but not obligations. It is my position that forgiveness is part of that class. As Con notes, forgiveness is voluntary and justice is what is due. Has a criminal been wronged if he is unforgiven? If he's paid his debt to society, he no longer "owes" for his crime, but neither, in my opinion, is he in turn "owed" forgiveness for his crimes from his victims. If a rape victim finds themselves unable to forgive their attacker who has been convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned, in what way has justice been harmed? The victim could try to forgive in a voluntary act, so they aren't being harmed. Is it the criminal, then? To be a bit repetitious, by what right can they demand that forgiveness?Forgiveness is about more than restitution, as Con's definitions indicate. If someone, through negligence, were to kill one of my dogs, I'm unlikely to ever forgive them for it. The demands of justice are that I be recompensed for the dog, and I respect that, but the demands of justice are not that I'm obligated to reciprocate by forgiving the crime itself, which cannot be undone. Forgiveness is emotionalForgiveness, as a voluntary act relating to emotions, is as capricious as all emotions. And justice cannot rely on emotions. If you've wronged me, perhaps by stepping in my foot, I might feel like I should kill you--but that's unjust of me, it's an unreasonable response to the harm. If nothing short of that will satisfy me, then to argue that forgiveness plays any necessary role is to argue that justice is impossible without the consent and emotional willingness of the harmed, which negates the entire principle of justice as being blind and as objective as possible. Justice cannot depend on one's feelings, and it cannot force you to have specific feelings. You can't have an unjust emotion--it is what it is. Mercy and ForgivenessWhat can rely on emotion is Justice's mitigation: Mercy. Christian theology traditionally teaches that "human beings are subject to death and eternal separation from God as a result of their sinfulness"[2], but that they may be forgiven by God and Jesus through the religion. This forgiveness is separate from, and over and above, the justice which would otherwise require that death and eternal separation. Obviously, as an atheist, I don't hold to the premises here. The point is made to show that justice and mercy are distinct. And mercy is good, but it is distinct from justice per se. Justice can be achieved without mercy, for mercy is subjective--who deserves mercy is in the proverbial eye of the beholder, while justice is ostensibly blind.Shakespeare says in The Merchant of Venice (Act IV Scene i) [3]: "The quality of mercy is not strained;It droppeth as the gentle rain from heavenUpon the place beneath. It is twice blest;It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:‘T is mightiest in the mightiest; it becomesThe throned monarch better than his crown:His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,The attribute to awe and majesty,Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;But mercy is above this sceptred sway;It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,It is an attribute to God himself;And earthly power doth then show likest God’sWhen mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this,That, in the course of justice, none of usShould see salvation: we do pray for mercy;And that same prayer doth teach us all to renderThe deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus muchTo mitigate the justice of thy plea;Which if thou follow, this strict court of VeniceMust needs give sentence ‘gainst the merchant there." With that, I turn the floor to my esteemed opponent. [1] http://www.drugwarfacts.org...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...(Shakespeare_quote)