A qualitative analysis of satisfaction with justice and desire for revenge in survivors of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center

Introduction

The September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks on the United States (US) prompted an unprecedented amount of disaster mental health research (North, 2016; Smith, Wasiak, Sen, Archer, & Burkle, 2009). Most of the existing 9/11 studies have focused on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but such a narrow focus may unnecessarily limit potential to learn about other important consequences of this disaster (North, Barney, & Pollio, 2015). Qualitative research is helpful to identify new concepts in areas of research that are underdeveloped or narrowly focused (North et al., 2015; Padgett, 2016). Previous research using qualitative methods has identified that the concerns of populations affected by the attacks were far broader than PTSD, and in fact PTSD represented only a small proportion of the identified concerns (North et al., 2015). Specifically, little is known about perceptions of justice and revenge among populations affected by disaster trauma, topics that may initially explored through qualitative methods.

Justice for wrongdoing has been discussed since at least the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (Zajda, Majhanovich, & Rust, 2007). The need for justice is invoked when perceived injustice has occurred. A major component of justice is the punishment of perpetrators. The concept of retributive justice involves punishing perpetrators proportionally to the wrong inflicted by society, rather than by individuals (Gervasi, 2015). The aim of retributive justice is the punishment of wrongdoer regardless of whether the punishment benefits society. In contrast, restorative justice (Beale, 2003) aims to place responsibility for the harm caused on the perpetrators by repairing the harm done to victims in ways perceived as just by both victims and perpetrators (Braithwaite, 2004). Social justice has been defined as the application of fairness and equality across members of a society in terms of distribution of resources and personal opportunities and application of individual rights and legal consequences (Buettner-Schmidt & Lobo, 2012). Principles of distributive justice include fairness, equity, and systems and procedures for ensuring justice. Distributive justice aims to establish and preserve the just ordering of society, individual rights, stability, and security (Buettner-Schmidt & Lobo, 2012). The broader concept of justice includes elements of retributive, restorative, and distributive justice.

The concept of revenge is also very old, prominently featured in classic literature at least as far back as The Iliad (circa 1200 BC) (Schumann & Ross, 2010). Acts of revenge occur outside of usual societal systems for dispensation of justice (Uniacke, 2000), typically by individuals in response to perceived injustice (Uniacke, 2000). The aim of revenge is to cause suffering to the offending individual beyond the correctional and restorative aims of justice (Schumann & Ross, 2010; Uniacke, 2000). Revenge is emotionally based, but justice is intended to be rational. Revenge is generally considered to be inherently wrong, immoral, and unjust, even though some people view revenge as a means of justice (Osgood, 2017; Uniacke, 2000). When justice is not achieved, some individuals may turn to revenge as a means to “take the law into their own hands” (p. 24) (Tripp, Bies, & Aquino, 2007). Francis Bacon referred to revenge as “a kind of wild justice” (p. 19) (Bacon, 1909).

Concerns relating to justice and revenge may be relevant to mass trauma. Perceptions of justice and revenge may shape the processing of such events, provide insight into how society might deal with the consequences of moving forward, and represent indicators of broader directional changes in society. Retributive and restorative justice are clearly related to responses to mass trauma; however, distributive justice also may play a prominent role regarding survivors’ assessment of the fairness of schemes for reparations or financial restitution. Most of the existing literature on justice and revenge in traumatized populations has been conducted in a context of war injustices and genocide, such as the Khmer Rouge tribunals, Rwandan national trials of genocide, and survivors of war in Yugoslavia (Başoğlu et al., 2005; Field & Chhim, 2008; Pham, Weinstein, & Longman, 2004; Sonis et al., 2009). Two previous studies have identified the relevance of justice and revenge to disasters in students geographically distant from New York City, including a quantitative study focused on belief in a just world (Kaiser, Vick, & Major, 2004) and a qualitative study of generic reactions to the 9/11 terrorist attacks (Beauchesne, Kelley, Patsdaughter, & Pickard, 2002). There have been no studies including directly-exposed samples of survivors of the 9/11 attacks examining justice and revenge.

This qualitative study explores perceptions of justice and revenge in a sample of survivors of the 9/11 attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center (WTC). Approximately three years after the attacks, qualitative data from brief open-ended essays about justice in the context of the attacks were collected from members of a sample of 196 employees of 8 businesses in the New York City area that were affected by this disaster. Qualitative thematic analysis of these essays provided extensive personal reflections on justice and the 9/11 attacks. The qualitative analysis for the study followed a data-driven inductive approach as described by Braun and Clark (Braun & Clarke, 2006), further incorporating extensive elaboration established across several studies and documented in numerous publications by the authors of this article (King et al., 2010; North et al., 2015; North, Devereaux, Pollio, Hong, & Jain, 2014; North, Gordon, et al., 2014; North et al., 2010; North, Pfefferbaum, et al., 2013; North, Pollio, et al., 2013; North et al., 2005a, 2005b; Pfefferbaum, North, Pollio, Wallace, & Jeon-Slaughter, 2006).

Methods

As part of a larger study of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City’s WTC conducted approximately 35 months after the incident, a volunteer sample of 254 employees with varied 9/11 disaster trauma exposures from 8 affected agencies in the New York City area were enrolled in this study. Participants completed the Disaster Supplement (North, Pfefferbaum, Robins, & Smith, 2001), a structured interview developed by this disaster research team and successfully used in studies of thousands of survivors of more than a dozen disasters including the Oklahoma City Bombing (North et al., 1999), natural disasters, and technological accidents (North, Ringwalt, Downs, Derzon, & Galvin, 2011). This interview provided demographic information and specific details of the participants’ 9/11 disaster trauma exposures and related perceptions and opinions. Participants were also asked to complete a brief written essay to describe “what justice means to you” in terms of “the hardship and suffering you have experienced as a result of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.” A box was provided on the top half of a single page for the essay, with the option of writing more below if desired by the participants. IRB approval was obtained from the cooperating academic institutions (Washington University School of Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, and Columbia University). The participants provided written informed consent during enrollment in the study.

The justice essay was completed by 77% (n=196) of participants. Completion of the justice essay was significantly associated with being currently unmarried (53% vs. 36%; Fisher’s exact p=.034) but was not associated with sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, disaster trauma exposure, or disaster-related PTSD. To begin the qualitative analysis, one of the authors read the essays to identify recurring themes, establishing four themes a priori that corresponded to the content of three justice (Accountability for perpetrators, Needs of victims, Justice through ensuring future safety) scales and one revenge (Desire for revenge) scale used by Sonis and colleagues in a study of survivors of human right violations in South Africa and Cambodians’ affected by the Khmer Rouge Tribunal (Sonis et al., 2009). The justice scale was developed and validated by Sonis et al., who used the Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivation Scale (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang, 2003; McCullough et al., 1998) to measure revenge. These justice and revenge scales were used to collect 9/11-related quantitative data as described in a separate publication (manuscript under review). The qualitative justice and revenge themes identified in the essays were directly based on the concepts of the corresponding justice and revenge categories used by Sonis and colleagues, providing the preliminary definition for the themes. No additional themes were identified.

To establish interrater reliability, two raters independently and systematically coded text from the essays into related themes. In this process, they resolved discrepant coding through consensus, and developed inclusion and exclusion criteria for coding the themes to provide final detailed definitions of them (see Table 1). Interrater reliability was established using Cohen’s kappa and substituting Yule’s Y coefficient of colligation statistic (Spitznagel & Helzer, 1985) for instances of coded prevalence of <20%. Acceptable interrater reliability of ≥.8 was achieved: .88 for Accountability of perpetrators, .88 for Desire for revenge, .82 for Justice through ensuring future safety, and .85 for Needs of victims, indicating values in the excellent range (Fleiss, Levin, & Paik, 1981). Once interrater reliability was established, text from all of the essays was individually coded by one of the raters into the four themes using ATLAS.ti (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) software.

Table 1.

Definitions of themes

Theme	Definition
Accountability for perpetrators	Seeking justice through finding and holding responsible parties accountable. This may include identification of the perpetrators, accountability by the justice process, fairness and impartiality, punishment, paying consequences, moral accountability, expressions of remorse, apology. Material excluded from this theme is discussion of benefits to US government or politicians generated by the 9/11 attacks.
Needs of victims	Losses and hardships of victims and their needs for compensation, restitution, and understanding facts about the disaster and the perpetrators. Topics included are injuries and health consequences of the disaster, work-related and financial losses, loss of life, and financial and other compensation for victims. Also included is need for information about the disaster and other victims and desire to understand why the disaster occurred. Excluded are comments reflecting the absence of justice.
Desire for revenge	Justice as vengeance by injuring, torturing, or killing the perpetrators. Included are comments about inflicting suffering or pain, retaliation, and “an eye for an eye.” Punishment inflicted outside formalized societal systems such as judicial, military, or political procedures was also included. The death penalty is excluded from this category, because this content is included in the accountability for perpetrators theme.
Justice through ensuring future safety	Vulnerability to terrorist attacks and measures to ensure safety against them. Topics included are feeling unsafe, domestic safety, security, prevention of future attacks or harm from them, and protection.

Quantitative analysis was limited to tabulation of numbers and percentages and means and standard deviations for descriptive presentation of major demographic characteristics of the sample and comparison of these characteristics between participants who completed versus did not complete the essays. Bivariate analysis such as correlation of demographic characteristics with frequencies of coded responses in themes was not conducted in this study focused on the content analysis of the text in the essays.

Results

The study sample for qualitative analysis (N=196) was 46% male (n=90), 69% white (n=135), 67% college-educated (n=130), and 48% (n=94) currently married, with a median age of 45 years. Nearly half (41%, n=80) had 9/11 trauma exposure as defined by diagnostic criteria for PTSD, and 13% (n=26) had 9/11-related PTSD. Table 2 provides the numbers and proportions of coded themes for the 196 essays; the content of the four themes is summarized below with accompanying illustrative quotes.

Table 2.

Identified themes with numbers and proportions of coded passages

Theme	%	N
Accountability of perpetrators	52%	101
Needs of victims	19%	38
Desire for Revenge	16%	31
Safety	13%	26
Total	100%*	196

^*Individual percentages sum to 100% accounting for rounding of individual percentages

Accountability for perpetrators

This theme represented more than one-half of all the coded text. Content within this theme included stated desires to identify and capture of the perpetrators; seeking accountability through the judicial system; discussion of punishment, restitution and fairness; religious/spiritual aspects of accountability; perceptions of the US government’s role in the attacks; and opinions on underlying reasons for the attacks.

The importance of using legal channels such as capture, prosecution, and sentencing to obtain justice was emphasized. Various types of recommended sentences included life imprisonment, solitary confinement, the death penalty, and even one suggestion of community service. There was disagreement over whether justice could be served by the death penalty, e.g., they need to “be put to death;” and make them “pay through prison time, not death.” Some content of this theme specifically referred to the 9/11 attacks, but most essays were more generic. Because the airplane hijackers were killed in the attacks, the judicial system was not mentioned as a means to justice for them, but one essay opined that death was their punishment. One essay commented that justice would be achieved through “elimination of Al Qaida.”

Several essays focused on the idea of accountability as “getting what you deserve.” Some stated that the consequences should be applied in proportion to the harm done. Other essays centered around the importance of applying blame and accountability to specific individuals rather than targeting entire countries, such as by “going after the people who really want to hurt me or my family.”

A number of essays asserted that accountability can be achieved only through moral, transcendental, or spiritual means, such as God, karma, fate, or the afterlife. Some indicated belief that the afterlife is when God metes out justice to unrepentant perpetrators to those who did not get punishment on earth. Some essays indicated a conviction that justice will be achieved through the perpetrators’ own sense of conscience and regret for their actions, and that this justice will supersede punishment that the legal authorities could impose.

These people have to live with themselves the rest of their lives. Sometimes that’s more punishment than any judge can give.

The people responsible for the attacks will not be met with thousands of virgins in the afterlife—but some sort of lesson for the horrors they caused.

I hope that if there’s an “afterlife” (and I’m not a religious person), people who have harmed others will understand and regret their actions.

Three essays specifically blamed the US government for its role in the attacks: “The US government should take ownership for their contribution to the terrorist attacks.” Responses pointed to governmental responsibility partially through inept governmental inter-agency communication and also through US “actions and policies around the globe that create and perpetuate feelings of intense hatred” that provoked the terrorists to attack our country. One essay specified: “The US has reaped what we have sown in allowing corporations free reign in the world, and prioritizing wealth and avarice over humanism.” Another essay disagreed, holding other governments responsible “for their failure to keep its people civilized,” adding, “why must the USA pay and no other nation pay?”

Many essays offered opinions on underlying reasons for the attacks. Some stated that the perpetrators believed they were carrying out justice as they perceived it: “Perhaps the perpetrators viewed [the 9/11 attacks] as justice being meted out. Their view is a distortion of world reality. The bizarre unreal sense of the whole experience seems out of the realm of justice as we understand it.” A similar response concluded: “Their error is that justice...is not based on a profound love of people.” Other essays stated that hatred toward the West (especially the US) is being systematically taught to young middle Easterners: “actual terrorists are nothing more than brainwashed people.”

Fifteen essays equated justice with fairness in perpetrator accountability in a general sense without specificity to the 9/11 attacks. Fairness included appropriate punishment and consequences for evildoers through established justice systems. One comment alluded to the Golden Rule: “treating others the way you would like to be treated.” Another added that in a just world, “awful things would not happen to innocent people.” Several essays generically stated that the perpetrators should be punished, but with no specific directives, for example: “Justice means that every person responsible for the attacks will be hunted down and punished.”

Needs of victims

This theme was coded in nearly one-fifth of the essays. An assumption was made in the definition of this theme that victims’ losses and hardships may imply needs arising from these losses, which is the rationale for inclusion of these issues in the Needs of victims theme. This theme also included discussion of fair and equitable response to the victims’ needs.

Many essays described losses and hardships stemming from the 9/11 attacks, such as “terrible losses of family, jobs, emotional wellbeing, and innocence,” with needs for justice measured against the severity of the respondents’ own personal losses. One essay blamed financial losses on a 9/11-related downturn in the stock markets. Several essays reported large salary reductions or lack of customary salary increases after the attacks. Some completely lost their employment: “I lost my job and it’s twice as hard to look for work now compared [with] before the attacks;” “The government cut funding; therefore, I lost my job. It’s harder to find a job now.” One person felt compelled to resign: “I quit my job. I no longer want to work [there]....I still worry and...am considering leaving NY or the US altogether.” Some voiced frustration with their companies, even accusing them of taking advantage of employees: “I had hardship due to pay cuts in the amount $20,000 a year while the CEO and top officers received pay raises. This hurt me and I was taken advantage of, as were my co-workers.”

Financial losses were compared with the magnitude and significance of lives lost: “compared to others who have lost someone, [loss of money] is nothing at all.” One company was commended for attending to its surviving employees despite losing so many coworkers: “My company, who lost over 180 people, will recognize and reward the efforts of the survivors who keep the company going despite the painful, emotional effects of losing so many colleagues.” Other types of work-related difficulties arising from the attacks were also described, such as having to assume new job roles and adjusting to abrupt changes in their workplaces: “The major problem I did have was returning to work to a totally different environment. Having to get used to everything changing at work. We were all very upset at the time.”

A few essays mentioned physical and mental health problems emerging from the 9/11 attacks. One essay reported “migraines and stress” attributed to working with distressed victims. Another reported pulmonary illness, presumably from exposure to the dust and debris from the collapse of the buildings.

Considerable focus was placed on providing both financial and emotional support to the people harmed by the 9/11 attacks. Some essays told stories of their personal efforts to provide assistance to others. One offered “direct care and aid....We fed, clothed, and offered comfort to them. We drove them to stores and they stayed with my daughter until the inland re-opened to traffic [after] 3 days.” Another described providing professional assistance as a psychiatric social worker to help clients cope with the loss of family members, job losses, and emotional consequences of the attacks.

The people needing assistance as described by the essays were not limited to just those physically injured or bereaved. One essay identified groups that have been overlooked: “Justice means the families of the victims will receive help….The survivors need to be recognized as well, not just the victims’ families.” Other people recognized as deserving of assistance were rescue and recovery workers and “the troops who went to Afghanistan to ‘defend and protect us,’” and their family members. Yet others mentioned were undocumented families, people who were dependent on their adult children who perished in the attacks, the economically disadvantaged, and people with emotional wounds from the attacks. Some essays specifically identified the importance of placing mental health workers not only at Ground Zero but in other places where people may have mental health needs. One essay noted that “The survivors will need long time to recover” from their losses.

One essay stressed the importance of fairness in provision of assistance, to include all groups that were “adversely affected, even in an indirect way.” Another called for “more equity in how the financial assistance is given out,” rather than based on lost income, “something more like a set lump sum to every family, perhaps with stipends based on the number of dependents.” Finally, one essay touched on the impossibility of the magnitude of the task: “Justice means to repair the irreparable: to bring back to life the innocent victims of this disaster.”

Several essays identified an important sense of need to understand the reasons behind the attacks and address the underlying causes. Some called for efforts to appreciate the point of view of the perpetrators acting from circumstances of oppression, deprivation, and misunderstanding. Suggestions were made to “invest more in helping impoverished countries,” advance “cross-cultural understanding,” and “seek the truth when facts become blurred.” One essay implored the government to “critically examine US policy to…understand why there is such hatred of the US.”

Desire for revenge

The most provocative responses emerged in the Desire for revenge theme, which accounted for less than one-fifth of the coded responses. Revenge encompassed responses to the perpetrators including mentions of “vengeance,” “retaliation,” “retribution,” and causing pain to or even torturing the perpetrators. Items coded in this theme included specific means of achieving revenge, accountability devolving into revenge, and the injustice or impossibility of revenge.

Several essays demanded revenge as the only way to achieve true justice. Several called for Osama bin Laden and terrorists to be killed, described as “annihilation,” “wiped off the map,” “vanish,” and “removed permanently.” Such strategies were hailed as a national demonstration of strength and resolve against terrorism to keep its people safe. It was suggested that even “anyone remotely involved” should be “captured and executed” to ensure a sense of satisfaction that justice has been served. Such inclinations were also extended to the progeny of the terrorists. Desires were expressed for the terrorists to suffer, such as “for eternity.” Retaliation was evoked in 7 essays referring to “an eye for an eye.” Two essays rejected the concept of “an eye for an eye” as justice, one describing “an eye for an eye” as barbaric and the other pointing out that “More hate only evokes more hate.” Others were in favor of “an eye for an eye:”

For a year after 9/11 I wanted them all to suffer. An eye for an eye so they would feel the same pain.

I never thought I would feel this way but I totally believe in “an eye for an eye” in this situation.

Our government should find Osama bin Laden and torture him to death. An eye for an eye.

Others also were in favor of torture, and some provided graphic descriptions of the torture they envisioned:

The complete annihilation of al Qaida, especially bin Laden....This kind of evil must be eradicated and the US MUST restore its credibility as a super power. We can no longer be seen as weak, soft, or lenient but as a country that will NOT tolerate such attacks and is swift to retaliate with decisive force regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

The fanatical nature of the terrorists and their willingness to murder innocents (think of the children on the four planes on 9/11) has filled me with the unwavering conviction that we have to eventually kill them all, every last one, and their progeny along with them.

Take these terrorists and give them a slow death by pouring acid all over them a little at a time and also lighting them on fire.

Five essays started with discussion of accountability and then further devolved into discussion of revenge: “getting bin Laden and prosecuting to the full extent of the law. Sometimes I think death is too good for him. Torture would be a good start.” Another essay asserted that revenge was the goal for the country: “There is an absolute justice in this world. America will do its best to get revenge.”

A number of essays viewed revenge and vengeful actions as wrong or even impossible. One equated revenge with destruction, conversely connecting justice with balance and “correcting the wrongs.” Another expressed uncertainty about what the definition of justice actually is, yet certainty that revenge was not the answer, expressing sadness over bombing of Afghanistan. One essay invoked a fatalistic tone, stating that justice was not possible through revenge: “We can’t fix what’s damaged beyond repair for an entire world [through revenge].” Another essay directly clarified the distinction between revenge and justice. Some essays expressed concerns about the potential for harm to innocent people in other countries in the process of seeking revenge.

I don’t know what justice means, but I know what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean attacking another country. When I heard...that President Bush had begun an attack on Afghanistan, I cried. I cried for all people in Afghanistan, all the innocent people who would be experiencing the same loss and emotions the survivors and families who lost loved ones experienced. The USA needed to do something, but attacking a country and “hoping” to catch and/or kill their leaders didn’t feel right.

Justice means going out of our way not to kill innocent people in other countries to retaliate out of anger…. It’s just really hard to find the masterminds (Osama bin Laden, etc.) And it is hard not to hurt and kill innocent people in the process.

Justice through ensuring future safety

Justice through ensuring future safety was the least frequently coded theme, comprising slightly more than one-tenth of the coded responses. This theme pertained to feelings of vulnerability to terrorist attacks and protecting populations from future attacks. The justice through safety issues discussed in these essays were fear of future attacks, preemptive attacks to prevent future terrorism, and improved security measures.

Some essays expressed fear of future terrorist attacks. One stated a personal position that elimination of that fear would be a form of justice. Comments in the essays expressed concerns specific to the safety of their families. Some essays concluded that life could never return to how it was before the attacks, even if the perpetrators were apprehended and terrorism was eliminated. Others indicated that their sense of fear was fueled by a sense of lack of control in which “my peace can be disrupted at any moment.” One essay expressed anger over having the constant sense of fear in their lives.

Several essays supported pre-emptive attacks against perpetrators of terrorism as a means of preventing future terrorism. One essay ranked safety above justice as a rationale for pre-emptive attacks, and another stated, “These people wish to kill us and/or destroy our society. They do not wish to negotiate, only kill us. My hope is that we get them first.” Another essay endorsed the need to “exterminate terrorism before it kills and destroys” as a way to help those who lost family members in the attacks. One stated that military force should be considered as a viable option to eliminate future threat. Several essays discussed the importance of preventing future attacks and protecting Americans in generic terms, for example, by “putting a stop to future terrorist activities” and “preventing another 9/11/01.”

Some essays identified specific security improvements to prevent future attacks, such as restrictions on immigration and border control. One essay expanded on security in specific terms, stating that making international laws stricter on terrorism would promote justice and unity and “create a deterrence to all terrorists.” Another essay called for technological advances in screening procedures using methods such as iris scans, counterfeit-proof passports and fingerprinting, and making visas and citizenship more difficult to obtain. One essay described insufficient support for homeland security needs, and suggested that money was being diverted to “[President] Bush’s religious fanatic friends.” Another essay argued for the need to “critically examine US security measures which are still woefully inadequate, while taking great care not to abrogate civil liberties or engage in racial profiling.”

Topics encountered across themes

A total of 35 essays discussed the idea that there was or could be no justice for those involved in and affected by the 9/11 attacks. The coding of categories in these essays was well represented across all 4 main themes and in 45 essays not coded with any of these themes. Several essays stated simply that there cannot be justice and did not further expand. Some described justice as “a made up word that is never enforced,” “an illusion,” an “unattainable abstract idea,” “meaningless,” and “elusive.” Some commented that it was impossible to comprehend the possibility of justice—“justice will never apply to this situation”—given the magnitude of the injustice with the deaths of so many innocent people and because the killers were dead and could not be brought to justice. Further, “there can be no justice if fanatics are willing to destroy themselves as they spread hate and death.” One essay stated, “it’s difficult or maybe even impossible to think that you can find justice in the larger context of events or the world at large.”

After what has taken place on 09/11/01 there hasn’t been any justice for Americans. There has only been more death (troops in Iraq). There has been more Injustice (degradation of prisoners of war). I feel 9/11 has taught people nothing about justice.

A sense of futility was evident in these essays:

“There can be no justice on this earthly existence.”

Life is not fair, there can be no justice if fanatics are willing to destroy themselves as they spread hate and death....Attempt[s] to destroy the teachers and organizers who train the young people to hate...just strengthens their cause even more.

Two essays noting that the hijackers had all been killed in the attacks further reflected frustration that the living co-conspirators would either never be caught and brought to justice, or if they were, they would “never see their punishment as justice, only as revenge.” Even if these co-conspirators were processed through the judicial system, one essay concluded that this would be enough: “I don’t think any justice system is adequate to deal with those who planned the attacks.” One essay specified that justice required a non-biased understanding of the entire situation and directed punishment at “the right people, for the right reasons…in order to make a wholly-righteous decision.”

The US government was mentioned in 19 essays and discussion of government was distributed across all 4 themes. None of the comments about the US government in these 19 essays were positive. Nine essays discussed the government’s role in the failure to obtain justice, described by one as “extremely troubling.” One stated, “What occurred on 9/11 was a tragic injustice [as] regretfully so have many of the actions taken by our government in response to this event been unjust.” Another essay described the government’s “chosen political remedy” as equating to “revenge, retaliation, more destruction” rather than through justice which the essay described as “balance…correcting the wrongs, healing the wounds on both sides…making the wrong right.”

Two essays mentioned the US invasion of Iraq, one stating, “I do not feel our going to Iraq was a search for justice on 9/11.” The other invoked US greed: “Our government invades Iraq, for a regime change [to protect] Saudi oil.…We have oil men in the White House using our government for their own self-interest.” One essay described the government as “composed of liars & thieves, all giving as little as possible and taking as much as they can.”

A pertinent negative finding is that no mention of post-traumatic stress occurred in any of the essays.

Discussion

In contrast to the extensive focus on posttraumatic stress in most existing research that has been conducted on justice, the current study approached this topic through open-ended essays with participants describing what justice means to them in relation to their experience of the 9/11 attacks. The material in these essays was coded into four main themes: Accountability for perpetrators, Needs of victims, Justice through ensuring future safety, and Desire for revenge. The material from these essays was most extensive in the Accountability for perpetrators theme. Remarkably, posttraumatic stress was not mentioned in any of the 196 essays; apparently, contemplation of justice did not invoke thoughts of posttraumatic stress in open-ended opinions solicited by this study. In contrast, several quantitative justice and revenge studies have imposed a focus on their relationship to posttraumatic stress (Kunst, 2011; Orth, Montada, & Maercker, 2006; Pham et al., 2004; Sonis et al., 2009). This suggests the importance of broadening the focus of future studies to examine justice in relation to disaster.

The essays in this study also made no mention of hatred toward the perpetrators and had limited discussion of revenge relative to the amount of discussion on justice. In contrast, other quantitative studies of justice with survivors of war and disaster have had robust representation of hatred and revenge. A study of violence and war in Kosovo found that about 90% endorsed hatred for the perpetrators and nearly 50% endorsed desire for revenge when asked specifically about it (Cardozo, Vergara, Agani, & Gotway, 2000), and three other studies (Goenjian et al., 2001; Kang, Delzell, Mbonyingabo, & Ngendahayo, 2016; Sonis et al., 2009) that specifically queried revenge observed it in abundance, with rates as high as 50%−63%. Possibly, the relative lack of direct discussion of revenge in these open-ended essays may reflect at least in part the wording of the question asked of study participants in this study. This question directed respondents toward “justice” without specifying revenge as well. Additionally, the more limited discussion of revenge relatively to justice in this study compared to the above studies may also reflect important differences in the types of situations faced by these different populations (e.g., genocide, war injustices, and longstanding conflicts fought along identity lines of ethnicity and religion versus the brief non-discriminating terrorist attack of 9/11).

All four themes reflected discussion of justice by the US government, representing approximately one-tenth of the themes. No positive remarks about the US government emerged in these comments. The US government was blamed for its role in the attacks through policies and activities that participants believed to have sown hate in various parts of the world, and was criticized for benefitting from the attacks and for not providing justice to the victims and safety from future attacks. Outrage was expressed that this largest attack ever on US soil had even been allowed to occur, revealing assumptions that the government should have protected its people from it.

The content of these essays distinguished justice from revenge. Comments about justice for the perpetrators largely reflected procedures within the traditional American judicial system. In contrast, comments in the revenge theme included actions outside of the ordinary purvey of the judicial system intended to inflict pain, suffering, and torture. Some of the revenge language was quite graphic. Similarly graphic language was reflected in a study regarding the 9/11 attacks in which school children suggested taking revenge on the perpetrators by capturing and torturing them and “put them on a plane with no pilot” (p. 217) (Beauchesne et al., 2002).

Many of the essays reflected that neither justice nor revenge is possible because the perpetrators were killed. Others opined that revenge and/or justice would come about through spiritual vindication. Many were fatalistic, concluding that there could be no justice. In fact, there was more “no justice” discussion than of revenge. This is ironic: the participants were asked to write an essay on their thoughts about justice, but many of them could not because they did not feel that justice was possible.

The qualitative approach to the investigation of justice and revenge is a main strength of this study, which gathered a relatively large number of essays (N=196) on personal thoughts about what justice means in relation to disaster, providing material for the highly in-depth analysis presented here. Importantly, the 9/11 survivors in this sample were local to the disaster and recruited from highly affected workplaces. The duration of almost 3 years between the time of the disaster and collection of the data may have provided the time needed for participants to process their thoughts and feelings about justice. Although not all of the participants were directly exposed to 9/11 trauma, their experiences reflected the entire range of exposures from location in the WTC during the attacks to indirect exposures through close associates. Limitations of the study include the volunteer nature of the sample and potential bias (unmarried status) among essay non-completers. Survivors’ ideas about justice in relation to the attacks may have further evolved during the many years elapsed since the data were collected, especially after the capture and demise of Osama bin Laden in 2011. It is unclear whether the conceptualizations of justice and revenge expressed by these disaster survivors might generalize to broader populations. Limitations of qualitative data include face value reliance on respondents’ own words and a lack of grounding of the data in quantifiable representations of the constructs described or statistical comparisons. The prohibitive complexity of linking content to descriptive characteristics to specific essays precluded in-depth analyses of inter-group differences that may have yielded additional insights.

The findings from this study suggest that future research should consider approaching the study of justice in relation to disaster more broadly, e.g., beyond a focus on posttraumatic stress. The findings also suggest the need for future research to further examine the evolution of the various ideas expressed about justice and revenge. It is unclear whether the ideas expressed about justice and revenge represented a relatively brief outrage or whether they represented a fundamental and long-lasting change within these individuals. It is possible that the concepts of justice and revenge expressed by these research participants predated the 9/11 attacks so that the findings of this study might not specifically reflect effects of the disaster on people’s thinking. The 9/11 attacks might possibly represent a watershed moment in society’s processing of justice and revenge in relation to such events precipitating a sea change in attitudes toward perpetrators of great harm. The findings of this study from 2004 represent a forward glimpse into societal attitudes that have evolved or emerged across subsequent years. The spread of social media use may have accelerated these processes, a consideration for future research investigation.