Justice and mercy are both conflicting themes which have been debated for a protracted period of time. Nobody seems to have a clear idea on whether they can coexist. Justice refers to the fair and reasonable treatment of someone whereas mercy refers to the compassion and forgiveness that is shown to someone when somebody has the power and authority to do so. It is ironic that these two are virtues since most virtues do not clash. The main point we are trying to address today – Can mercy and justice coexist? In my opinion, I believe that both aspects can coexist.
Firstly, justice is often said to be an “eye for an eye” treatment between the perpetrator and his victim. However, by convention, justice is but adhering to the rules of society where people would deem punishment for a crime to be fair and reasonable. In truth, the above statement is not justice but rather, cruel and merciless revenge for what the perpetrator has committed upon his victim. The quote “an eye for an eye makes the world go blind” ingeniously explains the fact that mercy can indeed coexist with justice since justice without mercy would basically equate to punishment that is far worse than the crime that has been committed upon the victim. In a sense, mercy regulates the severity of punishment and thus, ensures punishment has been served in a moral and ethical manner.
The most apparent example we have come to witness in today’s society is that of an Iranian acid attacker, who ruined the face of a lady. Based on the Islamic law of “Qesas”, to put in simply, a form of “an eye for an eye” punishment, the man could have been subjected to being doused with acid. Despite this, the victim pardoned her attacker for her crime because of the pure presentation of mercy. In this example, justice was served when the court paid acquiescence to the Islamic law when the victim was allowed to exact revenge on the attacker. However, the victim did not do this because of mercy. The fact that the court gave the opportunity for the victim to revenge is upholding justice, but mercy is at the same time seen, since the victim chose not to carry out the punishment on her attacker.
Some might argue that mercy cannot co-exist with justice because mercy impeaches justice. Take the case of Casey Anthony as an example, a mother who was accused of murdering her own child. Although the public has condemned her act and all evidence points out that she is the most probable suspect, the court acquitted her of all charges, just because the American legal system does not convict a suspect based on mere suspicion. In this case, we can see that although justice was served, many questioned the quality of it and even accused the court of being overly merciful and thus, they come to the conclusion that mercy definitely cannot coexist with justice.
To reiterate my points above, mercy can indeed regulate the severity of a punishment, thus ensuring justice in it. However, others might say that mercy questions the quality of justice. Both, as we can see, are opposing viewpoints. However, in my opinion, it all depends on the perspective of different people in different positions. The court, in the case of Casey Anthony, can perceive acquitting her as justice being served because her charges were based on suspicion and in a sense; mercy played a part in it. However, in the eyes of the public, they deem mercy to impeach justice as they believed that Casey Anthony did commit the crime since all the evidence pointed towards her and the acquittal of her by the court degrades justice.
