As I have previously noted, Justice is as natural as gravity. It is seen in agriculture and is recognized in every major belief system and philosophy. Karma. Reaping what you sow. What goes around comes around.

     Our western Justice System is derived from our most sacred beliefs, which is rooted in Creation, and our Creator. So to manipulate any natural system is to work against the very One who formed the system. Can't we see this even in agriculture? Farmers long ago adopted a strategy of plowing up the ground before planting, which tills the soil and releases enormous amounts of carbon which is incredibly advantageous, at least in the short term. However, we know now that tillage, while a briefly enjoyed shortcut, is very harmful to soil health and to crops and to earth's atmosphere. So humans intervened into a natural process because we thought we knew better, we ultimately harmed ourselves, we learned from it, and now almost all farmers in America have reverted back to "no-till", which is the way earth operated by itself anyway. Our farms receive maximum benefit by literally allowing creation to do what it already naturally does.

     Our western ideas of Justice were born out of necessity and probably good intentions overall. A healthy society must have consequences for behavior that is dangerous and harmful to other members of society. But another mindset has also been present with Justice since its birth and followed quietly into the west. And that is vengeance.

     We have glamorized the idea of getting even. All of our media is saturated with "taking matters into our own hands" and even pursuing our own form of "justice" when the system lets us down. But isn't that the same as plowing the ground when there is a better way that naturally exists? Or how many Hollywood stories have we enjoyed when a cop had to bend the rules a little in order to get the bad guy? The "bad guy" who broke the law is the same as the cop who bends the rules: they both justified their actions in their minds before they acted. And both have acted against Justice.

     There are tangible markers that define the boundaries between Justice and Vengeance. The truth of the matter is, if somebody has hurt you and you want them to have to pay for what they did to you, you are not following the course of Justice, because Justice is neutral and does not have emotions. What you are after is vengeance. Let me break it all the way down for you: When you invite Justice into your situation, it does not come in and decide which side is right and which side is wrong; Justice is on its own side. It is our job to figure out where Justice is and ensure we are on its side. Often in the cases involving humans, both sides are wrong, and we have a habit of deferring to whoever is in authority in those situations. If a man kills another man, and the police have to lie to secure the conviction, both sides are guilty of transgressing the law and both have denied Justice. The end does not justify the means.

     Fifty years ago, wrongful convictions were a normal occurrence due to the lack of DNA testing capabilities. But I can tell you from personal experience that there are still police officers and District Attorneys who will not hesitate to manufacture and present falsehoods as fact in a court of law.

     How do we restore Justice to its natural operations? Well, how did farmers restore the land back to its normal functions? They stopped focusing on the goal of having a harvest. It comes naturally. Instead, restoration required them to be willing to change their minds and learn something new. As it turned out, it wasn't actually anything new; they simply adjusted their approach to work alongside nature, which benefits everybody!

     Justice is not about making someone pay for what they did. That is only half of its purpose. And be careful as you read this, because you are sure to recall some instance when you got away clean with something you know was wrong. No, Justice also includes restoration. Reconciliation. Second chances. The purpose of punishment and discipline is to correct behavior and separate a person from society during that process. But what about when that process has taken its course? Is it Just to continue to punish someone when their mind has changed, and they no longer exhibit unlawful behavior? Is it Just for a D.A. to lie in order to punish a guilty person?

     My purpose in this season of my life is to break these cycles, which can only happen when minds change. I would like to conclude by recalling an ancient story from the life of a man who consistently changed peoples minds. One day, this man was debating legal philosophy when some law enforcement personnel brought a woman to him who had been caught breaking their legal code. He did not argue the law with them concerning her transgression, primarily because they were right in their accusations. Instead, he instructed them to punish her. But he also told them that only those who had never broken the legal codes were allowed to punish her. As the story goes, they slowly walked away, with their own crimes in mind. They were right in their case against her, but He was more right.