Violence in Sports and Public Life: A Discourse on the Universal Law of Balance

Violence in Sports and Public Life: A Discourse on the Universal Law of Balance By Angelito Malicse The human experience, whether in the structured environment of sports or the open arena of society, is governed by universal natural laws. Among these, the law of balance holds a central place. It dictates not only the harmony of ecosystems and physical systems but also the inner workings of human thought, emotion, and decision-making. When we compare how violence is treated in sports versus public life, we are not merely observing a cultural or legal distinction—we are witnessing two very different systemic approaches to managing imbalance. In many competitive sports, particularly those involving physical contact like boxing, hockey, or mixed martial arts, certain degrees of aggression and conflict are built into the structure of the game. These activities are bound by rules, referees, safety equipment, and mutual consent. While the public may witness moments of violence—such as a fight on the ice or a punch in the ring—these actions occur within a controlled system. There is a start and an end, boundaries are clear, and consequences are predictable. This kind of conflict, while seemingly chaotic, actually operates within a feedback loop that functions to restore balance—either emotionally, competitively, or interpersonally among players (Coakley, 2009). Here, the law of balance Is honored. Participants and spectators alike recognize that these moments of conflict are not personal but part of the system’s self-correction mechanism. They are expressions of tension release, accountability, or retaliation within limits. Importantly, these systems also include educational components: athletes are trained to control their behavior, accept penalties, and operate within the boundaries of fair play (Shogan, 1999). In this sense, sports act as a microcosm of a balanced society—where temporary imbalance is allowed only to maintain long-term equilibrium. In stark contrast, acts of violence in public life are treated with seriousness and condemnation. Public violence is not bound by a consensual framework; it is unregulated, unanticipated, and often rooted in emotional instability, misinformation, injustice, or oppression. When one individual harms another in public, the action disrupts not just personal safety but the perceived stability of the collective environment. There are no referees, no agreed-upon rules, and no structural mechanism immediately available to restore balance. In such cases, the law of balance is violated, and the system falls into disorder (Rawls, 1971). This is where the importance of police forces and intervention by responsible individuals or institutions becomes vital. The police serve as society’s designated referees in the public arena. They exist to neutralize immediate threats, restore order, and provide a stabilizing feedback mechanism when balance is lost. Their role, when exercised lawfully and ethically, aligns with the natural law of balance: to prevent further escalation, protect innocent lives, and return the environment to a state of peace and security (Goldstein, 1990). Yet intervention alone is not enough. To complete the cycle of restoring balance, society depends on the justice system—a formal structure that examines, judges, and corrects the violations of law and public order. The justice system plays an essential role in ensuring that violent actions are not left unchecked or unresolved. When it functions properly, it acts as a rational and fair feedback mechanism, offering proportionate consequences and opportunities for reform (Becker, 1968; Tyler, 2006). It provides victims with a sense of protection and resolution, and it holds perpetrators accountable in a way that aims not for revenge, but for correction and reintegration into the societal system.