Law and order (part 1)

Though we often forget it, our current justice system dates back to the Bronze Age, with Hammurabi’s Code “An eye for an eye.” Since then, revenge-based justice systems have dominated the world. This is also reinforced by our non-deterministic view of the universe in general—we treat society/people as though they have free will, even if they really do not. Today, our justice system in the US suffers moral problems because of this along with practical problems because of some of the system’s other aspects. In this post, and possibly a few following it, I would like to discuss alternative systems that would better suit our needs.

The first alternative I can think of is the “Brave New World” option: treat society as if it is deterministic, and pay no attention to personal liberties, privacy, individualism, or civil liberties (because such things are meaningless in a deterministic universe). In BNW, everyone is brainwashed, conditioned, and on hallucinogenic drugs to keep them happy 100% of the time, and there is no crime whatsoever because of this. There are actually a few positive things I can say about the system. You might think that this kind of setup is practical but not moral, but the truth is exactly the opposite, at least in terms of non-theist moralities. The BNW system does prevent crime, and it ensured the most amount of happiness for the people living in it. This makes it superior to other moral systems if judged on the basis of creating happiness (which may be the only way of comparing two moral systems without challenging the religious beliefs of either one). However, despite the BNW system’s moral superiority, it has many practical problems. It creates a populace that is unable to live in conditions beyond those they have been prepared for. Thus, should anything happen to the centralized government, the society would collapse and almost everyone would die. The author of BNW, Aldous Huxley, highlights this enormous flaw by showing how brainwashed people cannot perform basic survival necessities such as finding potable water or comestibles. Also, the BNW option is wildly impractical, as it takes a long time to carry out, and it represents the kind of thinking that the Western world has always opposed.

The next alternative is the “rehab” option. Supporters of this idea believe that the prison system should be abolished and replaced with clinical rehabilitation centers. The moral justification for this is that the current definition of “justice” is very similar to revenge, which is undesirable in the modern world. Instead, according to the theory, our justice system should work to make criminals better people ad help them return to society, not punish them, since punishing people serves no moral purpose. (Like the BNW option, the rehab system also has a deterministic slant to it.) On a practical level, supporters of the rehab idea will highlight every flaw in the prison system and explain how this will be fixed by the rehab system. This idea also has some genuinely good reasoning behind it, but there are some practical flaws in it as well. First, the science of psychology has not yet risen to the point where this can be entirely effective. Psychologists can be fooled—and therein lies one of the largest problems with the system. (Judges—who would be psychologists—could be tricked into exonerating a person who is actually guilty and psychologically unbalanced. Indeed, many convicts are probably able to answer questions with sang-froid  and poise when conditions require it.) Next, this system would not fix problems such as prison overcrowding, as supporters of the theory claim. In spite of all this, I agree with the original thesis: a justice system based on revenge, as ours is, serves little moral purpose (punishing a person to make them a better person does not count—this is a pragmatic and practical reason, not a moral one).

The next option I can think of is the “Heinlein” option, which is a system invented by (surprise) the science fiction author and philosopher Robert A. Heinlein (pictured). This system also denounces the idea of having a justice system based on revenge, but the solution here is a very different from either of the two above. Rather than treating society in a deterministic way, the Heinlein system protects privacy, free will, and personal responsibility to the nth degree while still working to reform criminals rather than punish them. This is achieved as follows: Upon being convicted of a crime, a criminal is given two options: to submit to psychological treatment (like in the “rehab” option) or to leave the society. They may allow themselves to be exported to other countries if possible, or they may enter Coventry, which is a large land area set aside for the purpose of housing those who refuse treatment. Inside of Coventry the government does not intervene in anyway, and no official government exists there. If a person wishes to leave, they must go through the “rehab” program before they are re-admitted into society. The main point is that even if the state finds the convict insane, he or she is still given the two options—thus, person responsibility is assumed at all times. However, there are practical flaws here too. Firstly—who is going to provide the land for Coventry? This sounds like a silly question, but I doubt any American would be willing to cede their land to the government, and it is highly unlikely that a large amount of people concentrated in one area would. Next, any problem associated with the “rehab” option can also apply to this one. Finally, there is the issue of what happens inside Coventry itself—governments, factions, and even terrorist groups may form, which may threaten the people outside of Coventry as well. Also, excessive force may be required to ensure that people stay there.

That’s all I have time for today. Next time, I will explore this topic a little more.