I should add here that I think Jane is actually right in her assessment, which might sound like I disagree with Helen, and by extension Jesus. I don’t. But I think they are two different jurisdictions. 

On a public level, injustice in society needs to be dealt with strongly enough to discourage its increase. So, as Jane puts it, as to teach the person not to do it again. 

When Helen says that Christians and civilized nations disown a violent response to hatred, she isn’t speaking of a public level response, she is speaking of a personal level response. That much is clear from her noting how Jane’s injustices are living rent-free in her head. In other words, if Jane, as the sufferer of injustices, wants to be free of these things, the answer isn’t to drum up vengeance of her own, the response would be to forgive.  

On a public level though, if the authorities were to simply ignore wrongs, injustices, crimes, on the “christian” principle of turning the other cheek, the result is the proliferation of wrong, injustice, and crime, since there is no check on it. 

This is the reason we discipline bad behavior out of children, in an attempt to modify their behavior before they get to the criminal stage. It’s why criminal behavior can’t be ignored by those in authority.  

So while Helen corrects Jane, she is giving Jane the key for how to best cope with injustice on a personal level. Jane isn’t wrong per se. Jane has correctly understood what must happen in order for injustice to be curbed. But Helen recognized that Jane isn’t in a position of authority 

As I read through the text, there are two of the supplemental materials that I came across. The first is a copy of the ad for a position that Jane posts.

The second is a copy of the handwritten first page of the book, in an envelope addressed to the publishers.