In my opinion I honestly believe that if you are to serve someone justice that you have not forgiven them and if you have forgiven them justice has not been served. Think about this scenario in which someone accidently runs over their neighbors dog and kills it. The person starts crying and pleading that it was an accident and that they are sorry. The neighbors are distraught and disgusted but out of mercy decides to forgive them of their actions and not call the police. Has justice been served? Especially considering the fact that many people are in jail behind the accidental killing of a dog?
Justice is just as hard to define as love is. It has a continuity of connotations that allows for it to be misinterpreted at times. As we struggle to understand exactly what the components of justice are we are still forced to impose laws that we believe helps us to shape our beliefs of what the justice system may seem like.
As we all may have heard forgiveness is just a way of cancelling debt. we believe that whenever we forgive someone they are changing the person that they used to be and becoming someone better. we believe that they are "not the same as yesterday". However, we notice many instances of "cancelled debts" that have happened in the justice system depending on the person and the crime. Is it justice? and if so, when are we to dictate whether or not the crime is forgivable?
In the film, White bear, we see a woman who has committed a crime in which she'll never be forgiven for, but is justice actually being served to her?
It almost passed as a form of justice until someone decided to swipe her memory allowing for her to just be a pawn. Is the purpose of punishment not to allow for the person to become aware of the wrong that they have committed and continue to be conscious of it, thus promoting rehabilitation? I honestly believe in this film the lady has honestly become a subject of revenge and revenge in itself because swiping her memory defeats the purpose of the justice system and conflicts any morals the prosecutors and whatever that society may possess.
6 comments:
I like how you related the film to to real life situations. Good point with the fact that when they wiped her mind is when it stopped being justice
I agree they should have not wiped her memory because it just doesn't really make it a punishment at all.
I agree with you as well by wiping her memory the punishment no longer fits the crime. This episode made me think about the justice system in today's society. Do you think something like this could happen today, in all reality we have most of the technology to do this, do you think people would actually allow this kind of punishment?
I like the question you pose of "Is justice really being served?" In this situation they went out of their way and beyond just to create the same experience for this woman every single day just for her to forget it all. It was most definitely punishment for the woman but I personally don't think justice was ever served. Like Betty said, the wiping of her memory is just the participators over stepping their boundaries.
I like that you bring out the point of erasing the memory of the woman . Like you said, this action defeats the purpose of the woman knowing that she is being punished for the wrong she did. With this, they are just causing unnecessary psychological trauma to a person that should really be punished for what she did.
I liked the fact that you posed the question whether wiping of the memory was for justice or for entertainment purposes. I completely believe in the latter. The people in the end were no better than she was when she committed the crime, and just like I brought it up in my own blog post, she's no longer the same person having all those memories gone, but every one else is conscious and they decide to stand by and watch her get tortured.
Post a Comment