The American Heritage Dictionary defines justice as the upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. Personal or vigilante justice is one person taking the law into his or her hands. He or she would not follow laws or societal justice. In the case of The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, a man is thrown into prison. He is framed for betraying the government. However, this man is innocent. AS Soon as he escapes from his 14 years in prison, he gives himself a mission: to exact revenge upon the people who threw him away.
Such is he story of a man turning to personal justice. Alexandre Dumas’ novel The Count of Monte Cristo demonstrates why there is a clear line between personal justice and societal justice. The origin of the idea for revenge is in the beginning of the man’s sentencing. The male, named Edmond Dantes, was cruelly thrown into exile for a crime he did not commit. Slowly but surely, he realized that his reason for being in prison was not a mistake. The people he thought were friends were the very people who threw him away. His life is completely destroyed.
Upon return to the social world, Dantes discovers hat everyone who had betrayed him are now in the higher social classes. They have all thrived in an environment without Dantes. He decides that the only proper life for his conspirators was one complete with ruin. However, in order to destroy everything that his enemies currently knew, Dantes had to have a plan. He could not copy what the people did to him, as they are too high in class: no one would believe a framing. Not only that, but Dantes needs to be invisible. If his plan were to be discovered, he would be apprehended and possibly executed.
It is also imperative that no one knows Dantes is still alive. In rder to achieve that goal, Dantes is killed and the Count of Monte Cristo takes his place. There are times when personal justice can be lawfully achieved. Dueling is one of these occasions. Dueling is a sort of fight between two men with a weapon: customarily a sword or gun. Such a fight is a high fashion in Europe and America and is considered a gentleman’s sport. A South Carolina general gave his take on his experience with dueling: “I never did clearly understand what it [duel] was about, but you know it was a time when all gentlemen fought” (qtd in Drake).
The wording the general uses is important, especially the word “all. This clearly shows society’s mood towards dueling: if a man does not duel, he is not a gentleman. In fact, if a man declines an invitation to duel, his honor is stripped from his name. If this man wishes to keep his honor, dueling and showing blood is the only way to do so (Drake). In fact, men loved to keep their honor so much they would die for it; out of 172 recorded duels in England, 69 of them resulted in casualties, which is roughly 40% of the fights (Drake).
However, for the Count’s goal of revenge and retribution, dueling simply is not enough (Dumas 139). While dueling over insults is alright, dueling over 14 lost years of young dulthood is simply not enough (Dumas 139). Not only is there not enough suffering for the enemy party, dueling is too quick. However, those are not the only drawbacks. If the Count were not as skilled in swordsmanship or in gunmanship, he could lose, and his progress would be lost. His honor would also be stripped again. Instead, the Count would prefer to replicate the torture and humiliation that he went through years ago.
Count’s justice as tied to honor is an important aspect of his definition of personal justice. When Dantes was jailed, his honor was quickly stripped. He became a criminal. He was an outcast. Citizens who knew Dantes also believed him dead, for those jailed for felonies such as Bonapartism were killed as punishment (Pettifer 12-3). There was no argument about Dantes status: it was painfully obvious he was beheaded. There was no justice for Dantes, no matter how innocent he was, for he was dead. When everything boils down to justice as tied to honor, there is no justice for Dantes just as there is no honor.
However, the dead man’s predecessor has stepped in to correct the injustice, even if it is purely through retribution. His method is to strip the perpetrators’ honor. Initially, the Count had most likely planned to expose one of the perpetrators, mprisoned for just ill will against them. In fact, this is a law (Pettifer 12). While bringing to light the treason against Dantes would strip their honor, this would not suffice for the Count. The Count’s desire is depending on seeing them suffer as much as Dantes did. In this case, justice is heavily reliant on honor.
However, lost honor alone is not enough. It is imperative that one knows the difference between personal justice and societal justice to thoroughly understand the topic of this paper. To begin with, the Count’s definition of justice is that the price the perpetrator pays should be equal to the price the victim pays. At the end of the day, both parties should have suffered equally. If this is not the case, then the retribution is not fulfilled. This is the only form of justice that the Count sees fit. However, he goes one step further: the culprit’s punishment should end in death.
Yet, the Count wanted such a death done in a certain way. He claims that “decapitation is too simple” (Dumas 137). In fact, Count insists that France is behind in knowing about executions and torture (Dumas 137-8). While he gives credit to the mazzolato, he despises the guillotine (Dumas 137-8). While the guillotine offers a quick and simple death by decapitation, the mazzolato as a more gory death. At first, the victim is hit upon the head with a mallet (Allen). To ensure that the person was not simply no person is allowed to be unconscious, their throat was slit (Allen).
To the Count, even this is not a preferred method of execution. Obviously, this is a very radical standpoint in personal justice. To contrast, societal justice is much more domestic. In fact, France’s treatment towards criminals was far more humane than Count’s beliefs. Yet, France was considered “brutal” and they “didn’t want to give up torture” (Donnely and Deihl 133). France previously allowed confessions by means of torture. Their means of execution, which was most commonly the guillotine, was never picked up outside of their country (Donnely and Deihl 137).
Even after torture itself was outlawed, public executions still occurred. In fact, such executions would draw very large crowds (Dalrymple). The guillotine alone cut off a total of 400,000 heads over a span of 200 years, which totals out to be 200 heads per year (Sage). As observed, Frace enjoys death and torture. However, even this much blood contrasts with the Count’s idea of proper retribution. To begin with, this method of justice is too painless and quick. If these offenders re to be taught a lesson, they need to be in pain.
Their lesson should also take longer than a second. Not only is this too quick, but when torture was outlawed, everything became much less painful. According to the Count, these people deserve to be in pain. After all, they did inflict pain upon another human being. It is only right that they are in pain as well. All in alI, while France is considered to have a brutal type of societal justice, the Count believes that France should step up their standards and inflict much more pain and lengthen the time of death. In Alexandre Dumas’ novel The Count of Monte Cristo, a boy is ailed.
Eventually, that same person decides to get revenge upon his offenders. However, his idea of justice is far from France’s idea of justice. There tends to be a fine line between personal and societal justice. As demonstrated, the reason behind this line is clear: if personal justice and societal justice were the same, not only would society be in chaos, but there would also be much more suffering. Vigilante justice is dangerous and inhumane. Lawful justice is justified and humane. For these reasons, there is a line between what someone believes should be justice and what truly is justice.