One Angry Man: A Critique of Michael Dorris’ Essay “The Myth of Justice”

by Scott Chastain

      Dorris’ essay, “The Myth of Justice”, concerns itself with a brief exploration of why Western society must believe in an impossible scheme of cause and effect wherein the bad get their just rewards and the innocent go free.  He sardonically lashes out at Western Society for entertaining such props, often to the extreme.  In the end, Dorris has only demonstrated that he is angry, and given us no real reason to accept his position.  Which is a shame.

      Dorris was clearly onto something when he pointed out the silliness in a literal belief in Divine justice.  Justice to be meted out to those who have not received their come-uppance in this life.  He may have nailed it perfectly when he explored the state of shock Westerners find themselves in when the bad guy doesn’t get his just desserts.  He deftly reminds us how we often seek for patterns when none need apply.  To illustrate this he compares, well sort of, the difference between intentionally causal creation and random creation myths from the Judeo-Christian and Nootka traditions, respectively.  So what went wrong?

      Dorris forgot the adage, “never drive angry.”  When you are upset you lose the ability to think clearly.  Had Dorris stopped stomping his feet about he might not have introduced some false examples.  Had he not been fuming smoke from his nostrils he may have seen more clearly when he addressed the Western need for pattern.  If, perhaps, he wasn’t shaking his writing fist in rage so frequently, he may have written more substance to clarify his points.

      I suggested that Dorris’ introduced a few faulty examples.  To clarify my point so that I am not subject to the same error, I introduce the public defender.  Dorris claims he has spoken with underpaid public defenders, idealistic “change the system from within” types, who vigilantly stand up for the poor and oppressed of our accused.  He claims that after a few years of subjecting themselves to protecting the rights of criminals, the public defender sells out to the “corporate health plan” so to speak.  He now gets a six-figure salary to put away the criminals he used to set free.  Say what?

      Since when do corporate lawyers go about the business of locking up criminals?  I was not personally aware of this development.  I was under the impression that the high-priced corporate lawyer did the same job as the public defender, except that he now does it for the rich rather than the poor.  Am I off my rocker here?  Is Dorris suggesting that to have a clear conscious you should neglect the accused poor and protect the rich?

      Another mistake that Dorris entertains is found in his summation of the Nootka tribes cosmology (Raven and his indigestion.)  Unlike what Dorris states, this cosmology is also causal.  It may not be intentional, but the effect of humanity emerging can be traced back to Raven’s overeating.

      There are other issues to wrestle with.  Dorris speculates that our final demise is the “death penalty.”  This indicates an unhealthy approach to the inevitable.  I don’t doubt that most Westerners think pretty much like myself on this issue.  While we are not in a hurry to embrace death, most of us don’t consider it a punishment.

      I couldn’t stop thinking to myself as I read this essay, that life as Michael Dorris must have been unpleasant.  At least when he was putting these thoughts into words.  The cynicism was overbearing and produced a prickly-hot feeling under my collar.  I am no fan of our justice system either, but this thing really hurt to read!

      Personally, I would have used real examples of the justice system failing.  I would have concerned myself more with the source of our feelings of justice (revenge, isn’t it?).  I would have at least taken some St. John’s Wort tea before I began.

      When all is said and done, I give Dorris credit for daring to say the things I am sure many of us are trying to keep shushed in our corners.  I say kudos for bringing into the light a serious philosophical dilemma.  Now to turn the other cheek, I say that perhaps when any of us decides to continue with this type of discussion, we attempt to speak a bit more clearly and use a few more credible examples.  After all, that would be only fair.  Mythically speaking, of course.