Bad Guys and Heroes: Who is Worthy of Justice?

Background & Issues: Public health is founded on the principle of justice. How justice is meted out is a product of our social construction of who we perceive to be “worthy of justice.” We are inculcated by our cultural experiences to utilize “exclusionary othering” as a means to decide who is “worthy of justice.” The simple act of reading of the newspaper can leave readers with a strong bias about just who is “worthy of justice.” These practices of exclusion impede public health's implementation of justice. Description: To illustrate the current practices of justice, examples are provided where the tenets of justice are obfuscated. These examples include the shooting of 4 police officers in Seattle, Washington and the military psychiatrist who killed several soldiers at Fort Hood. In the press the language describing the deaths of those “worthy of justice”-- police officers and soldiers-- differs vastly when compared to the language used to describe the accused shooters. Lessons Learned: The concept of justice is often used rhetorically but the actual implications of acting justly are a nuanced and influenced by cultural patterns of deeming some people worthy of justice while denying others the status being “justice worthy.” The principle of “inclusionary othering” may be a useful tool in reconsidering these practices of prejudicial dispensation of justice. Recommendations: Based on the analysis conducted, attention needs to be given to how public health advocates implement the principle of justice. Efforts to teach nurses and health care professionals need to include examinations of the prejudicial patterns of to whom we afford justice.