This is my second post on the topic of how the justice system could be better organized. Last time, I discussed three alternatives to the current justice system.I now realize that every system I mentioned last time criticizes the revenge-based justice system currently in use almost everywhere around the world. However, it should not be taken for granted that this concept is inherently flawed, Because of this, the first thing I would like to bring up today is the conservative response defending the revenge-based justice system.
Defenders of the prison system/revenge based justice would argue that corporal punishment can put criminals “back on course” just as well as medicine or the “rehab” option. This is because, the argument goes, all human beings have moral sense, which can be cultivated through punishment, like the way puppies are trained not to “use the bathroom” in the house. The second part of the argument is mostly based on a theistic belief, so I will ignore it for now.
However, this claim can be mostly refuted. Criminals can be rehabilitated with medicine or help from the psychiatric community, which is one of the arguments from the “rehab” option. Though this science has not been perfected, it is at least as good as plain old punishment. Thus, the pain of punishment is not necessary. Also, though I will not refute the claim that human beings have moral sense, but not all forms of insanity are simply confusion—in many cases, people are actually psychologically damaged. In those cases, mere punishment is not enough to help them, since their moral sense is damaged. Thus, punishment for the purpose of cultivating moral sense is not all it is cracked up to be.
There is also another element I would like to add into this equation, the death penalty. This is an aspect of the three options I talked about last time that I did not delve into, but I feel it deserves mention. In terms of the BNW option, the death penalty would only be used if an individual refused to conform to society, such as if their conditioning failed. In the rehab option, it is much the same—it would only be used if a person were deemed incurable of their metal illness. However, this goes against the spirit of the rehab system, since it is geared toward saving lives and protecting people from pain. In terms of the Heinlein option, the death penalty would never be invoked, since Heinlein did not believe the government should be trusted with such power.
Also, I promised to discuss more alternatives to the current justice system, so here they are:
Jeremy Bentham’s “panopticon”: according to Bentham, an English philosopher, all convicts should be placed in a prison that is designed so that all of the prisoners believe there is someone watching them. Because of this, says Bentham, the prisoners will always behave correctly because they think they are constantly under surveillance. There are few practical problems—Bentham even included architectural drawings of how to build such a prison. However, there is one overriding issue: Will it actually work? I doubt it. We have this sort of a concept even now, and it is very ineffective.
Next, the “rational anarchist” option: abolish any form of justice in terms of the State, but give people the right to administer justice themselves in any way they see fit. As alien as this idea sounds, it has occurred many times in almost all pioneer-type societies. For example, in the Wild West, vigilantes would take action against criminals themselves. Like the Heinlein system, this one is personal responsibility to the extreme, and government has basically no role here. In pioneer societies and small societies, this probably works very well. There are enormous practical problems with this system on a large, scale, though. In counties with a weaker police force, such as Mexico, we can clearly see what happens when government does nothing—no one stands up to stop crime.
There is something else to discuss here, that relates to the “rational anarchist” system and the Heinlein system: Personal responsibility. Ignoring the flaws in both these systems for a moment, look at the purpose they are trying to achieve: to administer justice while not impinging on personal responsibility in any way. The Heinlein system does this by not forcing a person into treatment, and the rational anarchist system does this by abolishing the role of government in creating justice. In my mind, this begs the question “is it worth it?” Is personal responsibility such an important goal in a society, and should we sacrifice practicality for it? Your answer will depend on your political view.
Finally, I have a question for my readers, which will probably relate to which system they agree with (at least morally). The question is this: What is the definition of the word “justice” on a moral level? In part 3 I will explore this question, along with some of my other thoughts on this topic in general.
6 comments:
Personally, justice in moral terms is doing what is fair and is right. Your analysis of all the different possibilities of justice system possibilities is spot on with my beliefs. Maybe there is no right answer when it comes to the justice system.
Perhaps there should be a combination of the justice system we have in place now and a form of rehab. The problem with that is I do not know how you would sentence people and decide their fate (i.e. prison, rehab, or a combination.) So maybe, a combination of the two would not work at all. However there has to be justice system because of what Billy previously pointed out: the "rational anarchist" option can only occur on a small scale.
There are flaws with every choice and who is to say which one is best. I am content with the justice system that we have right now, but I also do believe that people should be able to seek rehabilitation. This would save many people and aid them greatly. The problem with rehabilitation is that people can slip through the cracks and go on with their possible chronic felonious behavior. Many serial killers are master manipulators; this would allow them to potentially trick their doctor while going through rehab. So for lack of a better system the justice system we presently have will suffice, for me at least.
I agree with Karl; although our justice system isn't perfect, there's not much more we can do.
But Billy, I wanna ask you: do you believe in the death penalty?
The reason I asked the question about the definition of justice is because not everyone views it the way I do. Some people would maintain that people must be punished and made to feel pain if they commit a crime, but others (including myself) think that this is unnecessary. Karl, I am still a bit confused by what you mean by "fair and right"--do you mean that people should be punished for some higher moral reason, or is it enough that they are "changed" so that they do not commit the crime again?
As for your comment, Steve--I do believe in the death penalty, but not for the reasons you might think. Since I have a very pragmatic view of justice--i.e., the only thing that needs to be done to a criminal is to educate him--I only support the death penalty if a particular person cannot be rehabilitated. If the masterminds behind the 9/11 plot could be completely rehabilitated and purged of their violent urges and sent back into society, I would allow it, as bizarre as that may sound to you.
Hello,
In my opinion, justice is a synonym to revenge in today's society. When someone calls for justice, they call for a person to be punished for what they have done to them. I believe i have never heard the word justice used in relation to "doing the right thing". How can justice actually mean "doing the right thing" if administering justice is also administering punishment. How is punishment doing the right thing to help someone?
Also, in response to the comment's about our current justice system. I am a supporter of it. I believe it is the system with the least amount of flaws compared to other methods. My main problem with rehab is this: if a person commits a crime and completes rehab, what is to stop him from committing another crime? Nothing. Rehab cannot work definitely for every criminal every time. I believe that our current justice system works because it installs fear in the eyes of the criminal. Fear is what makes a criminal stop to consider the consequences. I also believe that establishing fear in a society is the only way to control it.
Justice seems to have different meanings depending on whom you ask. Some see as it as an eye for an eye where there is "equivalent exchange". Whiles others see it as something that adheres to a moral code whether it be one of religion or one that they have made themselves.
Due to this, personally I view justice as something that is somewhat subjective and I don't see it as being "blind" or truly ever "fair". If there is a human involved (I fail to think a relevant circumstance where there isn't) there will always be some kind of bias. So I ask this question, who decides what's right and wrong? Religion? The government? Or our own intuition?
On the subject of rehab vs. punishment, I have this to say. I agree with Dan's idea that fear will deter many people from committing crimes. However, this only works for those (for a lack of a better term) are "rational". Many "normal people" will not commit a crime for fear of punishment alone.
However, the fact of the matter is, some criminals are not "normal people". In their minds, there anti-social behaviors are perfectly rational. Because of past experiences or maybe because they have something convinced themselves of it, they see nothing wrong with their actions. If this is the case, I believe punishment may have no effect or further damage their psyche.
Finally I'd like to address the death sentence. Deciding who lives or dies is something that must be pondered over (that is if it truly is anyone's place to make such a decision). What kind of individuals do you think deserve it? Those who have murdered? Those who constantly "disturb the peace"? Or maybe even those after punishment and rehabilitation simply will not conform to society?
Dan--Your point of view is very interesting; it has much in common with what I discussed in the 3rd paragraph of my post. I agree that today justice is revenge, but what I really meant when I asked for your definition of justice is how you personally define it, not how society defines it. In other words, I was asking for what justice should be (in your opinion). Also, I think you have made a logical blunder in defending our current justice system. You said that pain is a good tool for "teaching" criminals how to act properly in society, but in the previous paragraph you spoke against inflicting pain on others in the name of justice. Why, then, is this pain necessary? Rehab would be a far less painful and more desirable option. Also, you said that people could go through rehab without being properly reconditioned--but doesn't the same thing happen in today's prisons? Also, as Andrew pointed out, what about people who are not entirely rational?
Andrew--You bring up a good point: Justice is often a very subjective thing in our society. I would also agree that religion is a factor, since we as Americans are very affected by the religion that permeates our culture. But the question you have to ask yourself is this: what does it mean to be "fair"? Does it mean "an eye for an eye"? And if yes, is fairness really what we want in a justice system? As you know, I favor a more pragmatic system that works toward the goal of reforming and reconditioning criminals. What, in your opinion, is the more noble goal: fairness, or rehabilitating criminals?
Post a Comment