At several points throughout “The Crazy Woman and the Tale of the Crime,” the concept of justice is viewed by the characters as discardable and/or unachievable. Some have the privilege of being above justice, such as Almada, who is “being protected by the higher-ups” (pg. 561). Others aren’t so lucky. Rinaldi is certain that Antúnez is the criminal; he claims that he “can smell a criminal from a hundred yards” and that “they all have the same look” (pg. 561). Labeled as a “gigolo,” Antúnez’s access to justice is denied based on his social status and his “look” as a criminal (pg. 560-561). Risking trouble with the police is, according to Luna, not worth it “to save a gigolo” (pg. 563). Even when faced with evidence of his innocence, his social status is used against him to justify allowing him to be “stuck in the can for the rest of his life” (pg. 563).
Antúnez is not alone in being denied justice based on his social status; the refusal to publish the identity of the real killer allows Larry’s death to remain unavenged. Furthermore, in reference to Larry, Luna claims that “in the long run those crazy women always end up like that” (pg. 563). This outcome is seen as common, and moreover, acceptable – it’s thought of as inevitable that this would happen to someone like Larry. This perceived inevitability, rather than being challenged, is used as justification for forgoing justice.
Justice is viewed by Luna as too great of a risk – it’s something that one might have to ruin their whole life to strive for (pg. 563). According to him, it’s something that should be shrugged off; he suggests that Renzi “take the day off” and “go to the movies” (pg. 563). Pursuing justice for the sake of those of low social status is considered unreasonable; the forgoing of justice is therefore seen as inevitable.
Yeah, I totally agree that an intuitive sense of ‘justice’ is something inaccessible and unobtainable in the short story. However, I think the idea of ‘justice’ is a pretty precarious one. If Rinaldi truly believed that Antunez is the true criminal, then would the implication of Antunez be seen as something just for him. This is not to say that Rinaldi cannot be faulted because his belief that Antunez is the criminal is based on prejudices. This is a very specific reference, but this almost reminds me of in LA Noire (spoilers) when you implicate the wrong criminals in the homicide cases because they are somewhat of a menace to society (not saying Antunez is a menace to society), and in a sense, Cole is somewhat making the place safer even though he is implicating the wrong person. All to say, I think the concept of justice and what is justice is definitely made complicated in this story.
Hey Sara, I also thought the concept of justice in this story was significant. This Diana Taylor quote from the lecture slides; “In order to qualify as ‘good Argentineans,’ people were forced to focus on the given-to-be-seen and ignore the atrocities given-to-be-invisible, taking place around them,” stood out to me because it reflects the notion of the collective blindness to corruption and violence in this story. As you mention, justice is denied to characters in this story based on their social status, they are inevitably cursed to suffer in this social system, reflecting ‘percepticide’ in action. The way that Luna cautions Renzi to not share his discovery reinforces this blindness to reality and the idea that confronting the truth is far more scary than continuing to live in ignorance. Justice cannot exist in a society that lives in fear, conformity, and blindness.
Great reflections on justice, Sara. This lack of justice (and truth, for that matter) became commonplace in dictatorial Argentina. However, your reflections tease out how the justifications for not pursuing justice (socioeconomic status, profession, appearance) also exist in non-authoritarian societies. Good work!