Justice of the Peace | Text by Heather Ferguson | May 2011
Like so many of our legal traditions, the role of the “Justice of the Peace” derives from our English ancestry. First coined in 1361 under King Edward III Plantagenets’s reign, these crown-appointed “justices” were given the task of preserving the king’s peace. Essentially, justices were able to seek promises of good behavior from those most likely to breach the peace. As such, these duties were mostly preventative in nature. Throughout time, the role has evolved and typically, in the U.S. as well as England, justices are able to try minor civil and criminal cases, have the authority to administer oaths, preserve peace in his jurisdiction, and perform other administrative duties.
It’s an odd combination: the words Justice and Peace in the same title. For these words sometimes appear mutually exclusive rather than collaborative. Justice meaning righteousness, a moral principle determining conduct, or administering of a deserved punishment or reward. Peace being reflective of an agreement to end hostilities, a state of mutual harmony, or the freedom from civil commotion or violence. Can there really be Justices of Peace? Does this become the age-old question, which came first: justice or peace? There is no simple answer.
As a lawyer and officer of the Court, I feel compelled to seek and revere justice. Yet, I cannot ignore my own code of morals and ethics that has been instilled in me by family, educators, culture, religious affiliation, and friends. I would be foolish to think or assert that they do not play a role in my sense of what is just. As such my sense of justice may be quite different from someone of a different background. It is likely the same holds true for an individual holding office, including a Justice of the Peace. On a macroscopic level, values, culture, and politics guide and shape what the U.S. might deem justice. It gets only more complicated when we try to reconcile the U.S. view with what Libya or Iran or Egypt sees as justice.
We Americans can probably readily agree that the violence in Libya must come to an end. We may also hope that it comes to a peaceful end. But where does that leave Justice? And who metes out Justice? Is it the U.N. Security Council? The Rebels? The International Criminal Court? Or those countries currently involved in a “peace-keeping” role?
The U.S., in its relatively short history, has become entangled in dozens of “peace keeping” missions throughout the world. Most of these missions involve large numbers of military troops, billions of dollars, masses of weapons, and result in violence and death. It’s not that I question the need for a U.S. presence in some of these scenarios, but isn’t “peace-keeping” a misnomer? In most of these instances, there certainly wasn’t peace in the country before we landed on their soil. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to simply state that the U.S. is seeking plain old justice? So often it seems that a sense of justice must precede any form of true peace.
Have we become our own vigilante Justices of the Peace in the world? But as we flex our political, military, and economic might throughout the world, perhaps we can also set an example of justice and peace living harmoniously. And what better place to start than as justices of peace within our own borders.
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
