{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03803680981595092, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009406952965235174, 'mean_word_length': 4.571753986332574, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On field mice, butterflies, and tigers: Mark Twain’s ‘Ten Commandments’ and circumstance-based justice

There is a short essay by Mark Twain that has given me much pedagogical mileage whenever I teach about justice. The piece (part fable, part commentary) is from a collection of what one editor called Twain’s literary ‘considerations of the darker aspects of life’ (Tuckey, 1980, p. xx). I, however, prefer to think of the essay as one so honest and true that by creatively illustrating the shortcomings of our approach to justice, it motivates readers to work for change. From his Fables of Man collection, Twain’s musing on the ‘Ten Commandments’ accomplishes, in some 500 words, what other scholars – like many of the contributors to this special edition of the journal – have been struggling to communicate for decades: namely, that the imposition of punishment is a poor substitute for the realization of justice. This is because punishment can do little to affect change in either the circumstance or temperament of those who offend – let alone in those who have been harmed by offenders. Deploying his signature wit and insight, Twain’s essay focuses on the identities of two murderers. The first remains nameless in the narrative, but readers are informed that he is guilty of slaying one man. For him, justice comes in the form of a public hanging. The second murderer is a man named Holmes, and Holmes who is described as a monster, is someone who admitted to butchering some 60 persons. For his crimes, Holmes likewise receives the scaffold. At this point readers begin to see Twain’s critique. ‘There seems to be a discrepancy in the distribution of justice,’ writes Twain. ‘If Holmes got justice, the other man got 59 times more than justice’ (Twain, 1905 or 1906, p. 18). I do not have a degree in literature, and I must confess that it is quite possible that I have only a partial understanding of the work in question. Indeed, I am often accused of selectively interpreting the arts to buttress my strongly held views. For this, I am guilty. But on this question of justice, Twain’s language is unmistakably direct and clear. He argues that there is little the criminal justice system can do to achieve justice by way of penal law. ‘Criminal courts do not dispense “justice,” he writes, emphatically adding, “they can’t.” To speak of justice in the context of punishment, then, Twain argues, is to use ‘the wrong word’ (p. 18).