Mercy vs. Strict Justice

Thanks, famous!PRO's CASEIn this debate, I hope to present a convincing case in support of mercy over strict justice. While this issue is multifaceted, my basic logic will follow a simple route, succinctly summarized by Robert Frost when he wrote that "nothing can make injustice just but mercy."This debate compels us, the debaters, to present and defend two oft-conflicting notions of justice, and to ask ourselves which is better. It makes sense that whichever approach to justice produces the most justice overall is the one that bears the richest fruit. Therefore, I will endeavor to show that mercy is the best way to correct injustice.It is not my role, however, to argue that mercy is always the better option, just that it "bears richer fruit," which implies an "on balance" consideration of the topic. After all, one tree could have 10 fruits, and another 100. Both have fruit, but the latter is clearly richer and more plentiful. Now that I have clarified the topic, I will construct my case.=============Argument 1: Mercy Releases the SelfMercy, per the definitions provided, entails forgiveness, which is in turn key for self-release. Suppose for a moment that I am the victim of a mugging and as a result of this mugging I harbor fear and anger towards the person who attacked me. Holding onto those negative feelings means that I become a victim of those feelings. It is as if the mugging is un-ending and that the attacker’s ability to make me feel angry or scared has not diminished. I am not due those negative feelings which were inflicted on me by the mugger, but failure to forgive means that those emotional wounds will stay with me. This gives the mugger enormous influence in my life, and perpetuates an injustice, namely the ongoing psychological trauma I experience.Forgiveness allows me to release this pain and to free myself of the mugger: “[l]etting go of grudges and bitterness can make way for happiness, health and peace. Forgiveness can lead to: Healthier relationships, Greater spiritual and psychological well-being, Less anxiety, stress and hostility, Lower blood pressure, Fewer symptoms of depression, Stronger immune system, Improved heart health, [and] Higher self-esteem." [1]Argument 2: Mercy Reduces CrimeA strict interpretation of justice, that is to say, a more punitive model of justice, would require that wrongdoers be punished for their wrongdoing, regardless of whether it is their first transgression or not. Moreover, those punishments would naturally be more severe under this view than under a mercy-driven approach.Throwing nonviolent or first-time offenders in prison with hardened criminals may teach them how to become criminals, and punishing them harshly may produce problems later in life, such as hardship finding jobs, leading them back to crime. This reasoning is borne out by empirics. People incarcerated for less time were 3% less likely to reoffend then longer-serving counterparts. Similarly, people who were not incarcerated at all were 7% less likely to reoffend. [2] Pew Research Center reached a similar conclusion, writing: "nonviolent inmates...could have served three months to as much as two years less without any decline in public safety...for many offenders, longer prison terms boost taxpayer costs but add little to no overall reduction in crime." [3]Even within prison systems, mercy through rehabilitation is more effective than retribution. A meta-analysis study "found that in rehabilitation programs that conformed to the principles of effective intervention, recidivism was about 25 percentage points lower." [4] These principles are very commonsense-type things: have a trained staff, target at-risk offenders, follow up on released inmates, etc. Thus, a merciful approach to the criminal justice system better reduces crime and crime-induced injustices.Argument 3: Mercy Prevents Injustices to the OffenderSuppose I commit a crime and serve my time. It seems clear to me that I have paid my debt to society and that it should not continue to punish on me for a debt already paid. Keeping this in mind, when former criminals cannot find jobs because of their record, it seems that society is still penalizing them for their wrongdoing. It is employing a punitive model of justice that legitimizes their denying a job to this person. This is like demanding payment from someone who already paid—it is neither fair nor merciful nor just to the offender. Argument 4: Mercy is more Understanding of Mitigating CircumstancesThe picture Con will paint of justice is rather black and white, i.e. people who do something wrong should be punished. Mercy presents a much richer, nuanced, view of justice. It realizes that there are extenuating circumstances, and other factors (such as a person’s character), which should go into an assessment of whether or not to punish and how harshly to punish. In this way, mercy is better able to avoid injustice involving overly harsh penalties and punishing people for silly things. For instance, due to a 3-strikes law, one individual was sentenced to life in prison for failing to repay a $120 AC bill; [5] a mercy-based system would reject this for what it obviously is: ridiculous.Argument 5: Mercy Heals Communities and RiftsConsider that, on an individual level, forgiveness is necessary to unburden oneself (as noted earlier). This holds true on a societal level as well. Mercy both allows groups to relieve themselves of negative feelings, but it also reduces risks of escalating violence, and offers a chance for healing. Suppose for one moment that a city was torn apart by racial divides, as with Ferguson or Baltimore. In this city, a protest is being held without a permit. Police have two options: to strictly enforce the law, or to be merciful/lenient and allow the protest to continue. The former option will likely spark further unrest, resentment, and anger. The latter, while it may not end the disruptions, will not increase tensions further. This example illustrates the role of mercy in controlling and preventing violence; that when people get trapped in cycles of revenge and retaliation, it becomes incredibly hard to break free of those ever-escalating cycles. It's like the Hatfield's and McCoy's. Mercy is thus an appropriate tool here in injustice-prevention.Another example we can offer is a real one. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid was a large success, and helped produce the stable nation we see today. It was based on a restorative justice model, whereby "[w]itnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences...Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution." [6] This allowed a public airing of grievances which allowed wounds to be frankly addressed and confronted as part of a healing process, but it also crucially prevented cycles of black-white retaliation that could've consumed the country, as they did in Zimbabwe.=============In conclusion, Mercy reduces injustices caused by holding on to negative emotions, crime, unfairly treating offenders, cruel penalties. Thus, the richer fruit grows on the tree of mercy, and, as I am sure Frost would agree, mercy is by far the best way to turn an injustice just. Thank you!SOURCES1 - http://www.mayoclinic.org...2 - http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca...3 - http://www.pewtrusts.org...4 - http://law.jrank.org...5 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...6 - https://en.wikipedia.org...(South_Africa)