In his novel “The Water Dancer,” Ta-Nehisi Coates tells the story about his main character’s journey on the underground railroad. In a Newscast about his novel, Coates says he did not want to include revenge in the novel because it “evades one of the more interesting aspects of African American History… vengeance has been a luxury that Black people have had:” Slavery and the ages of the Jim Crow laws have passed, we have defeated Segregation, and Black life, along with African American History, has gained a massive platform. Every day, we are still trying to right our historical wrongs.
While, Coates may not have wanted to include Vengeance as an aspect of his novel for these reasons, times have changed since the time period in which “The Water Dancer” takes place. In this essay, I will focus on the modern-day Civil Rights cases involving Black fatalities by white police officers. In the long run, Coates is right that African Americans have experienced at least some Vengeance for the times of slavery and segregation. In this post, however, I will demonstrate why this fight has not ended and, in today’s world, significantly more Vengeance is deserved.
Today, there have been all too many fatalities by white police officers of black citizens. Two of the most well-known incidents–those of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner–gained their fame as a result of public backlash, and their legal decisions would impact the country’s Criminal Justice laws for years to come. Despite the weight the decisions carried, the courts failed to satisfy the public’s collective need for Vengeance−the police officers in question went unpunished. Riots and protests stormed the streets of cities across the country after each of these occasions.
If the proceedings of the U.S. Criminal Justice system are considered to be the most “just” in the world, why are so many people left lacking Vengeance? In his book “True to Our Feelings,” is Robert Solomon wrong to argue that “Vengeance” and “Justice” are tied? In this essay, I will attempt to answer these questions with my own personal philosophy on how the meaning of “Justice” has changed immensely over just three centuries, whereas Vengeance has not. I will use examples from the failing U.S. Criminal Justice system, as well as Justice’s evolution in American History, to demonstrate why Justice cannot currently be tied to Vengeance (as Solomon argues). There are some instances where, unfortunately, Justice for all means Vengeance for none.
In his book “True to Our Feelings”, philosopher Robert Solomon characterizes Vengeance as an “emotional phenomenon” which functions as an “evening [of] the score” between the wrongdoer and the victim. Imagine a brother who elbows his sister in the back seat of the car, and the sister immediately elbows him back. This is her way of getting even. Before any elbowing occurred, the brother and sister were on an even playing field−nobody had been wronged and nobody needed to make up for any wrongdoing. Once the brother did elbow the sister, however, she immediately returned the act. Why? To punish him by inflicting the same pain on him that he had caused her. According to R.S. Gerstein, “Vengefulness is an emotional response to injuries done by others: we feel a desire to injure those who have injured us” (Solomon 112). The sister’s need to “even the score” rather than let it slide, therefore, illustrates Solomon’s argument that, “as with our hunger for sex, we do not succeed very well in suppressing our thirst for revenge” (112).
“Perhaps nowhere is the denial of what is most human about us (that is, our emotions) more evident than in the various debates and concerns that surround the problems of punishment in Criminal Justice… punishment is in part the satisfaction of the need for Vengeance and punishment makes no sense without this. (121)”
In this passage, Solomon clarifies the dependent relationship between Vengeance and punishment, and he alludes to the system of Criminal Justice to make that case. For Solomon, punishment serves as the “satisfaction” of Vengeance, while Vengeance does not make sense without punishment. More importantly, however, Solomon points to controversies over punishment in the Criminal Justice system to understand Vengeance “denied” (more coming). As he compares Vengeance to “hunger” above, he considers Vengeance (and the emotions) “what is most human about us.” As a human cannot survive without food, Solomon’s comparison argues that bad things happen when vengeful humans are denied their revenge.
But not only does Solomon argue that Vengeance is a psychological human need. In addition, he points to the decision of the Supreme Court case Gregg v. Georgia to highlight the vital role Vengeance also plays in the function of society. In the case, the Supreme court evaluated the ethical standards of the death penalty, which the Court decided to uphold in the end. The majority opinion stated that:
“…When people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they ‘deserve,’ then there are sown the seeds of anarchy−of self-help, vigilante Justice, and lynch law. (113)”
It is important for the public to have faith in the government’s ability to punish criminals. There is a crucial distinction made in the wording of this decision, however, that I believe is vital. The decision highlights the importance of the people’s faith in the Criminal Justice system to “impose on criminal offenders the punishment they ‘deserve.’” It does not, however, claim that Vengeance of some sort (punishment of the accused or compensation for the victim) is crucial in all Civil Rights cases. We see this in cases similar to those of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner.
I agree with Solomon’s argument that Vengeance must be satisfied for the health of the population. I cannot, however, support his custom that Vengeance “seems to lie at the very foundation of our sense of Justice” because I live in a country where, unfortunately, that fails to be the case. In the American population, the people seem to agree that Vengeance serves as the foundation for Justice. The current definition of Justice, however, does not. Thus, there is a lack of alignment that must be altered.
Let us take a moment to comprehend the U.S. Criminal Justice System’s legal definition of “Justice.” “Justice” refers to “fairness,” “moral rightness,” and (in sum) “a system of law in which every person receives his/her/its due from the system, including all rights both natural and legal…” Under this definition, the process of Criminal Justice is understandably required to be fair to all parties (with a fair trial) so that “Justice” applies to both the victim and the wrongdoer in court proceedings.
In what I will refer to as the “Perfect World” scenario, vengeance is achieved for the victim and the victim’s allies. But Vengeance is not always served in situations where Justice has been. In the Harsh World Scenario, for reasons that I will explain below, “Justice” as it is defined in the U.S. legal definition is applied, yet Vengeance is nowhere to be found. In this scenario, the accused is “innocent until proven guilty.” The verdict is also innocence, however, despite contrasting views. As a result, the victim and the victim’s allies do not experience Vengeance even though the victim and the accused did experience Justice, as promised by the U.S. legal definition. It is, unfortunately, these commonly occurring situations that lead me to oppose Solomon on his point that Justice and Vengeance are universally tied. I will refer to two case studies to shed further light: the fatal Trayvon Martin shooting, as well as the case of Eric Garner’s fatal arrest. If these decisions (and others like them) turned out differently and punishment was received, I would agree that Justice and Vengeance are currently tied.
In 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman–a Florida Police Officer. In a voice recording of the moment, department authorities tell Zimmerman to pull back from Martin, yet Zimmerman continues to follow the unarmed Black teen around the neighborhood because he looks “suspicious.” Zimmerman is also caught saying “they always get away” as he follows Martin and, eventually, pulls the trigger. Despite the action of murder, Zimmerman is determined “not guilty” as a result of a Florida State law called the Stand Your Ground Law. Under Stand Your Ground, a person could kill if he or she feels threatened in the given situation. Zimmerman got off by pleading self-defense.
“I can’t breathe.” These were the final words repeated eleven times by Black U.S. citizen Eric Garner as he was tragically choked to death by a white police officer. Despite the incident going viral on the internet, the police officer who choked him, Daniel Pantaleo, was not indicted. According to Richard Donoghue, the U.S. Attorney of Eastern New York, the video “did not support charging Pantaleo with a federal criminal Civil Rights violation.” “We can’t breathe” became the slogan repeated by protestors on the streets who demanded Justice for Garner and his family.
In both of these tragic incidents where the victims were killed, the accused–George Zimmerman and Daniel Pantaleo–were deemed “not guilty” according to the courts, yet the legal requirements of Justice were fulfilled. While Vengeance always implies that there is a wrongdoer, the definition of Justice does not: we see this in the most famous American legal practice that is “innocent until proven guilty.” In that vein, we cannot acknowledge a wrongdoer from the start under this definition of “Justice” and, unless a case proves otherwise, the government refuses to recognize the accused of being a wrongdoer at all. I must, therefore and unfortunately conclude that under these criteria, if “Justice” is considered to have enacted in the proceedings of these cases with a lack of Vengeance in the results, then Justice and Vengeance are not universally tied.
It most certainly does not feel like Justice was applied because of the outcome, and thousands of individuals would agree with me based on the level of upset and moral wrongdoing that these verdicts ignited. Since these events, the #BlackLivesMatter movement, as well at the #MeToo movements have gathered storm. There are protests and marches taking place almost every weekend in a different part of the country, and Black Union groups on college campuses have increased significantly. We see here that the Justice system has, therefore, gone down a different path than that of the Justice currently demanded by the people. How has this occurred?
I believe that there is a different type of Justice the American people demand. As I stated above, American “Justice” applies to both the victim and the accused in the courtroom, despite the decision of the case. This definition embodies the goals of the American Forefathers who desired to instill fair court cases for all participants. As we have seen, however, this Justice is not grounded in Vengeance, but rather, exists independently of Vengeance. Vengeance and Justice can coexist depending on the outcome of a particular case, but they do not always coexist as Solomon believes.
But if there is one thing that these modern Civil Rights cases demonstrate to us, it is that Justice has evolved. Justice takes a different form for the modern American population than that of our population in the 18th Century, which was concerned with “just” court proceedings for both the victim and the accused. In this modern day, we see a transformation of “Justice” into more than one particular field: Justice is personal and it is broad. From the #BlackLivesMatter movement, we see that the Justice that was once functional for the American Criminal Justice system no longer is. Today we more frequently disagree with court decisions and require more action to be taken for something to be considered “just.” But what types of actions are those, and how would we relate them to Justice?
I think Solomon would understand my acknowledgement of the evolution of Justice in the United States. Solomon died in 2007–several years before the 2012 Trayvon Martin Case–so it is possible that he left this world with a content heart from what he saw of the Criminal Justice system. Many of its failings have since then occurred and altered the public’s view of our system’s proceedings since the publishing of True to Our Feelings. While Solomon did argue that “Vengeance deserves a central place in any theory of Justice and the emotions,” I think he would stick to that belief even after reading this essay, yet agree with mine as well. Ultimately, he might urge us to update the American definition of Justice by allocating a system where Vengeance and Justice are tied. Some examples may include government compensation (and thus acknowledgement) for the victim’s experience or other government payments. No matter the efforts made to align Vengeance and Justice once again, it is crucial that the people and the government agree on a functional, modernized application of Justice. Only then can Solomon’s theory of Vengeance grounded in Justice exist today.
Shared by: Katherine Finch
Image Credit: http://eltecolote.org/content/en/commentary/black-lives-matter-means-solidarity-not-division/