In this post, I would like to delve deeper into the moral and practical arguments behind some of the systems I have described in the previous two posts on this subject.
The first point I would like to bring up is one that I touched on briefly in “Law and order (part 2)”: the death penalty. In a pragmatic justice system (one that works towards reforming criminals), the death penalty would only be carried out on an individual who could not be rehabilitated. However, in today’s justice system the death penalty does more than just punish those who have committed heinous crimes; it also serves to deter people from committing crimes in the first place. In a system such as the rehab system, there is no fear generated by the system to keep people in line. I am not sure if I really have an answer to this problem—the situation very much like give-and-take. The current revenge-based system causes unnecessary pain, but the rehab system does less to prevent crime. As far as I know, there is no way to prevent these inconveniences in either system.
There is another point I think I have left out of my previous posts: Is there an psychological illness associated with every crime, and if yes, does this mean that all criminals can be treated and rehabilitated by the “rehab” option? This question has some serious implications to philosophy and sociology. It essentially means that if the science of psychology improves, we will eventually be able to gauge a person’s metal ability or desire to commit a crime (before they have committed one) and send them to prison or rehabilitation simply on the basis of this intent. This raises enormous moral and practical questions. First, it means that the universe is essentially deterministic (at least to the point that it affects us). This would mean that the BNW system is morally justifiable, and the Heinlein and rational anarchist systems are unjustified because responsibility does not exist in a pre-determined universe.
On a similar vein, I would like to bring up one of the main themes of the book and movie Minority Report: Is it justifiable to send people to jail or rehab before they commit a crime as long is there is probable cause that they would commit it anyway? If the universe is deterministic, the obvious answer is yes. However, if human beings do possess free will, the situation is very different. This also raises another question: is it better to treat society as if it is deterministic even if it is not (particularly in terms of a justice system)? Today, we treat society as though it has free will, and our justice system is clearly a reflection of that. In terms of the systems I have discussed, this is something like the BNW system compared to the rational anarchist system: the first completely tramples over free will, but the second trips over itself and creates numerous practical flaws because it’s main goal is to protect free will and personal responsibility. Which is more practical, and which is more moral? Neither is very practical, but the BNW system is probably more practical than the rational anarchist system because it does not have to protect personal responsibility. In terms of morals, either decision creates a huge problem if we guess wrong: if we choose BNW but people do actually have free will, we have committed a huge moral mistake. On the other hand, if we choose the Heinlein system or rational anarchy and the universe is deterministic, we will have created a lot of unnecessary unhappiness. However, I would like to throw the question out to my readers: Is protecting free will worth the problems it causes, or is it better to treat society as if it is deterministic?
This brings me to the next point I would like to make, which has to do with the rational anarchy system. Since the government is not getting involved in the justice system in this kind of configuration, the exact purpose of the system is not clearly defined. In fact, what could happen is that different individuals with different ideas of justice could go about punishing people in any way they see fit (in fact, this did happen in the Old West). The result: chaos. This is a huge blow to the rational anarchy system; keep this huge flaw in mind when thinking about the points in the paragraph above.
In the next post, I will talk about justice systems in relation to the concept of fairness.
4 comments:
If we say, "Oh, you aren't in trouble for committing this crime because it was just a psychological illness that you were either born with or obtained at some point in your lifetime which wasn't your fault. So thus, you are not responsible for your own action," then at what point to we draw the line?
"Oh, it wasn't your fault that you got this grade because you are just naturally less capable of retaining information than most people. You aren't responsible for that."
Do you understand what I'm trying to get at? If we don't hold people accountable for their actions simply because of God-given abilities (or disabilities, I should say), how can society truly function?
Well, that's the question, isn't it? Yes, there are some disadvantages to treating society as if it is deterministic. However, there are also some major advantages, as I mentioned. I also think you are confusing free will and responsibility--the two are not the same. What you are talking about is the fact that people will avoid responsibility when they are not treated the way they are not, which is not necessarily true. Also, remember that what you are saying only applies if we have free will after all. What is the advantage to treating people as if we are actually responsible for are actions if we really aren't? Additionally, since I know that you are a supporter of the current system, I have to ask: How does treating people as thought they are responsible for their actions (whether they actually are or not) justify physical punishment?
You bring up a great question. Again, that's just one of the cons in the give-or-take system.
It appears there is no perfect answer to this question. Every system appears to have its own pros and cons, both morally and practically.
Post a Comment