Rawls on Justice as Pertaining to the Domestic Violence Law

Justice is defined in the Merriam-Webster's dictionary as “the administration of what is just (by assigning merited rewards or punishments).”

According to author John Rawls in his article “Justice as Fairness,” there must invariably be a justification for deviation from equal liberty, and the burden of proof regarding this departure is on those who divert from it. Therefore, Rawls would agree with that assertion as it stands, that the recent domestic violence law is unjust. “Each person participating in a practice, or affected by it, has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all” (Rawls, 1958, pg. 165). Under the domestic violence law, the only individuals who may utilize its rhetoric are those serving time due to a conviction. The domestic abuse survivors who took a plea in their case are excluded completely. Obviously, in the assemblage of domestic violence survivors, the above-mentioned liberty for all is ostensibly absent.

Rawls asks readers to embrace the idea that people have similar needs and concerns, so that working jointly is possible. For that reason, he would allow the argument, all domestic violence survivors are powerless, and being similarly situated, none can dominate any other.

In accordance with Rawlsian theory, legitimate complaints were established, and as a result the law provided some relief for domestic violence survivors. Unfortunately, only a select few benefited from reform, rendering the entire process unjust. “Questions of justice arise when conflicting claims are made upon the design of practice and where . . . each person will insist . . . on what he considers his rights” (Rawls, 1958, p. 172). Rawls would agree with the contention that all those who suffer substantiated abuse should be able to cite those instances when being charged with a crime against their abuser. The accused should have the right to let mitigating circumstances be known. Ultimately, the goal is to make the punishment less harsh, severe, and painful. Rawls contends that the acknowledgment of moral principles will show in the acceptance of referencing them as reasons for claim limitation.

He further expresses that individuals acknowledge the burden of providing explanations when persons act defiantly in showing shame and remorse as well as an urge to make amends. The rationale is domestic violence survivors, who subsequently commit crimes against their abuser, strive to show shame and remorse as well as an immense desire to make amends to victims. However, they also wish to show the explanation or excuse (the domestic violence suffered) as indicative of why they chose to act contrary to the rules of law.

“There is, however, no reason why they (the people) should regard this position as final; for if there are inequalities . . . the immediate gain which equality would allow can be considered as intelligently invested in view of its future return” (Rawls, 1958, p. 173). It is the sincere hope that the domestic violence law, as it stands, is not final. Those impacted by violence expect the gain, which equality would allow, to be for all in order for everyone to reap the benefits equally. Rawls would grant, in seeing the principal conditions unmet, those agreements to a confined individual are deplorable at best. It is human nature to detest uncertainty and losing inalienable rights due to actual or perceived violation of the law resulting in ultimate mistrust. Already terrified and ignorant individuals, often having little to no understanding of the law, are manipulated into accepting an often spurious arrangement.

People are often offered pleas for a lesser, but not always applicable charge, and told if they do not agree there will be stiffer, harsher, and sometimes irreversible detrimental consequences. Prosecutors prey on already monumental fears and anxieties causing concessions that would not otherwise be made.

Then, one must also consider the postpartum depression (PPD) law. Originally, women afflicted with this debilitating mental illness were not allowed to use it as a mitigating factor. Fortunately, over the years, all women, regardless of a guilty verdict or plea bargain, were finally able to seek relief due to a PPD diagnosis. Domestic violence survivors are holding out for similar relief.

Rawls would allow the argument that, in a perfect world, injustice would never occur to begin with. In a utopian society, domestic violence wouldn’t be an issue as each member would “love thy neighbor” and never wish to harm one another. In reality, the justice of practice does arise as individuals blatantly press their claims on others. When the government decides to provide relief for certain injustices, the entire practice is still unjust when only a segment of the population is affected. In recognizing the injustice the subsection of domestic violence survivors suffers, there are those who wish to right this wrong.

Rawls provides an outline of hope that certainly aligns with the views of ending the above-mentioned injustice. “The criterion for the recognition of suffering is helping one who suffers, acknowledging the duty of fair-play is a necessary part of the criterion for recognizing another as a person with similar interests and feelings as oneself” (Rawls 1958, pg. 182). The injustice incurred can and should be met with relief in order to finally point the social, legal, and moral compass in the right direction.