This very short short-story lends itself perfectly for in-class reading and further discussions of the ideas of Right and Wrong - in the sense of the difference between legality ad morality: is legal the same as moral? why, why not, when? The idea of 'Poetic justice' would seem to answer 'no' to that question - we appear to feel that some retribution is sometimes morally justified, even if it's not so legally speaking.
I suggest some questions that can be asked, both on the text itself and then more generally about the theme. Of course, you should prepare the ground for all those questions by first observing the text carefully, noting down details about the setting, the type of property, the town, the people involved (children), the squirrels (innocent creatures unaware of the moral question), the judge etc. Then you can help the process of interpretation and discussion with the questions below.
This is only part of a lesson around the idea of justice which I developed: the full lesson includes visual material and two additional, very short, texts, each with possible themes and discussion questions.
Short-story: Justice (J.R. Lennon, 2005 – 286 words)
A famous and wealthy retired judge moved to our town and bought a huge, stately downtown mansion. The mansion was surrounded by wonderful grounds, consisting of lush lawns and enormous spreading trees, which in previous years had been used, with the full permission of the friendly town magistrate who used to live there, as a kind of public park, available for all manner of recreation and enjoyment.
However, the new owner had a tall iron fence erected around the perimeter of the grounds, hired men to cut down all the trees and installed a giant private pool and a four-hole golf course, which additions he could be seen, through the iron bars, enjoying in solitude. In a feature article on the front page of our newspaper, the judge described his beloved collection of Cuban cigars, and responded to our complaints with the assertion that the house and the land it stood on were his alone, and that he alone would control all activities that took place in and upon them.
Not long ago a rumor circulated that the squirrels who once lived on the wooded grounds had, in the absence of trees, taken up residence in the judge's mansion, and had found their way into his humidor and shredded his beloved cigar collection. The newspaper, eager to curry favor with the town's wealthiest resident, printed an unsigned editorial denying the rumor, but we all happen to know the town exterminator, who insists it is true. We are pleased to learn that he has been careful not to kill all the squirrels, because although he cannot scoff at a client of the judge's stature, at the same time he has, after all, a well-developed sense of justice.
J. Robert Lennon (2005). Pieces for the left hand. London: Granta, p.51.
Questions around the short-story ‘Justice’:
Ask about the story, and the main character (the judge): who is he? What does the fact that he’s a judge mean? How do we see that in the story? (money: buys big house, lots of money, private golf course; power: people a bit afraid, closes off the grounds without discussion, stays away from the villagers, power of justice/the Courts, power of money)
How do villagers react, and why?
Why do you think the author used the squirrels to do the damage, and didn’t use a person to do it? (makes retribution seem more natural since no-one asked the squirrels to do it)
Does the judge have the right to do what he does?
Does it feel right, though? Why, and why not? (it feels very selfish, disrespecting the others, ignoring the others, constraining their freedom)
How does that connect with the very last words? (‘just retribution’, ‘justice’: what happened to the judge’s cigars etc was ‘just’, i.e. morally good)
The real justice is in the judge paying for his selfishness, paying for his hubris: justice is not in what is legally possible, it’s (also? Primarily?) a problem of morals.
Do you think this story would be read differently in different cultures? For example, where the ‘retribution’ conducted by squirrels would be seen as wrong, morally and legally?
Think about the squirrels: they make justice seem natural, or at least more natural, more innate, than the legal system that defines what uis right or wrong.
Do you think there is such a thing as natural justice?
That we all have a inner sense of right and wrong, independently of the legal system, our cultures, our history?
Or is any idea of right and wrong, and opf justice, contextual (i.e. social, cultural, historical)?
Does our sense of right and wrong change with time: within our own lifetime (what you felt was right/wrong when you were 10, 20, 30, 50, 80), but also across History?
Those questions on and around the text link up with more general points related to the text, for example:
· What is justice? Is ‘just’ the same as ‘right’ ?
· Is legality the same as morally good?
· Is there a difference between what we think is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in general, and what we think is right or wrong when the situation is about ourselves, or friends, or family?
· Does our sense of what is just (right/wrong) come from ourselves, or do we get it from our environment, culture, history, family, friends etc?
· Are there things more important than justice, like family, or love, or friendship?
· When we say that we did what was right: do we mean right in general, or right for ourselves?
· Can a legally wrong action lead to a morally good result?
· Can your sense of morality be wrong for others?