Granting Mercy as a Way to Serve Justice

Granting mercy is sometimes the best way for a judge to serve justice.
Describe a specific situation in which granting mercy might not be the best way for a judge to serve justice. Discuss what you think determines when granting mercy serves justice and when it does not.
___

According to the Old Testament adage, "An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," justice must be meted out through justly compensating the person who has been harmed. Essentially, this law of retaliation supports the notion that justice cannot be served unless the defendant is punished in a way that is equal to the harm he has committed. The New Testament then backs away from this notion through Jesus' advice of turning the other cheek when one is harmed. Justice, a concept that denotes fairness in society, is served in various ways according to the judicial philosophy of the judge. Some believe that a person must be always punished for wrong doing. In many situations, though, others maintain that granting mercy may be a more effective means in the end.

In a formal court setting, granting mercy to the defendant may serve justice in certain situations. This may involve cases where a petty crime has been committed by a first-time offender. The offender also must be sincerely sorry for his actions and views his time in court is a wake-up call. The act of being granted mercy and receiving a second chance may also be an extremely humbling and life changing experience for the defendant--setting him on a more positive path in life and allowing him to grant mercy to others in the future. In these cases, punishing the defendant may not serve justice to the defendant and society as a whole. For example, time in jail may further corrupt the defendant and set him on a pattern of dependence on others and the government. Indeed, granting mercy in the case of first-time offenders may help serve justice in specific scenarios.

Courts also grant mercy to a person judged to be clinically insane. That is, he or she is unable to fathom the wrongness of his or her action. His mental illness or deficiency prevents him from acting as a normal person of society who has a working conscience and can tell wrong from right. Courts may not let this person go free in society but will make sure he/she receives psychological care and guidance. This consequence, in legal terms, is not a punishment per se and such clinically insane people are deemed to be "not guilty" due to their mental condition.

Indeed, judges in the court of law are not the only people who have the power to grant mercy or mete out punishment. In an informal setting, people are harmed and the wronged party has the option to forgive or take some type of revenge. Oftentimes, granting mercy or the act of forgiveness may serve the interests of not only the offender but the wronged person. Holding a grudge or retaliating maybe more harmful ( in a psychological and emotional sense) in the end to the victim.

Oftentimes, granting mercy to an offender may not serve justice. This may hold true when the defendant is dangerous and being set free would not be in the best interest of society. An offenders also should receive punishment if he expresses no regret for his crime and/or is unlikely to change his delinquent behavior. Sometimes that offense is so serious (murder, molestation) in society's view that granting mercy is not even an option.

Justice, indeed, is a fluid concept that differs from person to person. In any given situation involving wrongdoing, people (and judges) will have varying opinions as to the right way to serve justice. Perhaps the best way to ensure justice (at least in the formal court setting) is to take into account not just the harmed person's interests but society's interests as a whole. By only considering the goal of making the wronged person whole, a judge may overlook any adverse effects to society in choosing a certain type of punishment.