Batman Justice

Two competing definitions.

1) Justice is when people get what they deserve.
2) Justice is harmony among people.

Examples:

1) Joe Chill gets the death penalty for murdering Bruce Wayne's parents. Eye for an eye.
2) Joe Chill gets parole if he provides incriminating evidence on a big mob boss. This for that.

Rationale:

1) Bruce Wayne gets satisfaction for the death of his parents by seeing Joe Chill executed. Since Bruce Wayne was the one who was hurt, therefore he is the proper beneficiary of Joe Chill's death.
2) Bruce Wayne's satisfaction comes second to what is good for society (many other people). The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (Spock), therefore society is the property beneficiary of justice.

Commentary:

When apologists make society the proper beneficiaries of justice, it can often leave those who were violated without any personal satisfaction. Eg: what is good for society may not be good/satisfying for Bruce Wayne. On the flip side, what is good for Bruce Wayne may not be what is best for society to function as a whole. Eg: Bruce Wayne is satisfied, but society still suffers from the mob boss being at large.

What to do?

Of course the masses win. It's the enlightened way of utilitarian thinking. By releasing Joe Chill, a great number of people benefit, therefore Bruce Wayne is gonna have to bench his dissatisfaction.

I would argue that Joe Chill's fate should be in the hands of Bruce Wayne. He can have Joe killed, or he can strike a deal to release him if he testifies against the mob boss. I don't think society has the right to take away that satisfaction. Sure some would argue that Bruce Wayne's satisfaction is narrow and that he is selfish for demanding death instead of helping out the city; however, (if selfishness is a bad word) isn't it equally selfish for society to demand its own satisfaction over that of Bruce Wayne's?

Society doesn't ask Bruce Wayne to give up that satisfaction though. They often don't because personally, it would be satisfying to see Joe Chill executed or sit in a prison cell for the rest of his life. It's always the middle man that preaches society. The Lawyer, the salesman, the politician, the evangelist.

1) The lawyer argues that society is better served by giving Joe Chill parole in exchange for testimony.
2) The life insurance salesman argues that the monthly premiums are there to protect your family and it's selfish to want to keep that money for your own personal consumption.
3) The politician tells high-income earners that society is also the proper beneficiary of your labor. You make 100 bucks, 20 of that needs to help those who cannot help themselves.
4) The evangelist tells you that you are your bother's keeper, therefore you must provide for them even though it will cause you privations. It is sinful to live well when others suffer.

Never do you see any of these four people saying that your sacrifices/privations/levies are for them. Oh no, it's always for the great good. Those who can produce are asked to give to those who can not, otherwise they are demonized as being selfish and for wanting to enjoy their own life and labor.

Best Scenario:

Bruce Wayne commutes the death sentence to life in prison in exchange for mob information. If Joe Chill is truly reformed, he should offer up that information for the great good of society.