Justice or Vengeance? The Dangerous Illusion of Balance
When the desire to make things right becomes a mirror of what went wrong
“They deserve to die.”
That’s the instinctive cry. The one that rises from the gut. The one we say when we’ve seen too much, lost too much, hurt too much.
We feel it when we read about the worst crimes. When we hear about children killed, lives taken senselessly, communities shattered. In those moments, something ancient surges up in us: rage dressed as justice. But if we’re not careful, we confuse the two.
This post is about that confusion.
What Is Justice? What Is Vengeance?
At first glance, they look similar. Both involve judgment. Both involve consequences. But at their core, they are opposites.
Justice seeks to restore.
Vengeance seeks to equalize pain.
Justice is measured, principled, outward-facing.
Vengeance is emotional, reactive, inward-facing.
Justice asks, What is right?
Vengeance demands, What will make me feel better?
The Illusion of Balance
When we carry out the death penalty, we often justify it with this phrase: “It brings balance.”
But what does that mean? Does ending a life really restore what was lost? Does it undo the trauma? Does it heal?
Or does it just echo the harm in a different voice?
Vengeance offers the illusion of resolution—like a door slamming shut. But the grief remains. The wound remains. The only thing that changes is that we become participants in the very thing we claim to oppose.
The Fulfillment Trap
In my upcoming new book, The Fulfillment Curve, I explore the idea that we chase outcomes thinking they will bring us peace. The job title. The house. The approval. The apology. And yes—even the punishment.
But the truth is: fulfillment is not found in outcomes. It is found in alignment.
And alignment means this: that what we do reflects who we are—not what we fear, or what we feel pressured to replicate.
When we confuse vengeance for justice, we fall into the trap of performing power rather than exercising principle. We do something because it feels final. Because it looks strong. But the fulfillment it offers is hollow. And temporary.
Choosing Another Way
Pope Francis said:
“The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”
That doesn’t mean the person didn’t do wrong. It doesn’t mean they don’t deserve consequences. It means our response to wrong must not become a new wrong.
If we believe in human dignity—ours, theirs, everyone's—then we must act as if it is real. Even when it’s hard. Even when it hurts.
So What Do We Do Instead?
That’s where we’ll go next. There is a scale of moral response—ranging from vengeance to restoration. And understanding that scale is the beginning of a new kind of justice.
A justice that doesn’t mirror the crime.
But instead, models the world we want to live in.
Next in the Series:
A Scale of Moral Response: From Vengeance to Virtue