Law and order (part 4)

At last, here is the long-awaited continuation of the series on justice systems. This time, I would like to discuss justice systems, particularly the ones I previously mentioned, in relation to the concept of fairness. Fairness can be defined as being “just or appropriate in the circumstances.”

Now, the question I would like to pose is this: Should fairness be the objective of a justice system? In other words, is it in our interest to pursue the concept of fairness, and should our justice system reinforce this? 

This question is inherently related to our current revenge-based justice system, since supporters of this system would argue that inflicting punishment on a criminal is justified because it is “fair.” But I have to ask: is it really? I think we are letting the positive connotation of the word “fair” obscure the real issue here. Even if “fair” is defined as it is above, its meaning is still somewhat ambiguous. Rather than explore the tricky semantic and linguistic issues that are causing this problem, I will simply say this: If fairness can be defined and revenge or “an eye for an eye,” then it is not necessarily something a justice system should aim to achieve.

Additionally, fairness presents another interesting problem in relation to the current justice system. I would like to raise the following question: Assuming revenge is “fair,” should the severity of a criminal’s punishment be related to the damage to the victim, or should it be based on the criminal intent of the criminal in question? There are flaws with both, as I am about to show. Consider two people, a bum and a millionaire, who each committed the same crime, which is punishable by a fine. If the severity of the fine is based on the damage to the victim, both the millionaire and the bum will be fined the same amount of money. This is obviously unfair—to the millionaire, the fine is simply pocket change, but to the bum it is necessary for survival. If the fine is based on criminal intent this problem disappears, but it violates the concept of justice as defined above: the fine is no longer fair because it is no longer based on “an eye for an eye.”

I would also like to talk about the rehab system in relation to the concept of fairness. Critics of this system would argue that its utilitarian spirit is not “fair” because it fails to treat everyone equally, since it is based on the intent to commit a crime, not the severity of the crime. Again, rather than delve into semantics I will simply say this: If the definition of fairness demands physical punishment for vengeful purposes, its desirability must be called into question. 

Next, I would like to bring up something I have not talked about at all during this series: The concept of justice in relation to religion. This is by no means a concept alien to us; our own system is derived from religions principles, and we see religious influences in justice systems besides our own as well. I would first like to bring up the point of religious tyranny. If the religion the justice system is based on is untrue, then many people have been unnecessarily punished for no reason at all. This is an obvious flaw in this kind of a system, and it is the reason I detest religious tyranny in every form. Also, I would like to bring up an interesting paradox called the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is what is moral moral because God loves it, or does God love it because it is moral? Supporters of a religion-based justice system would disagree, saying that God is inherently good, so anything God supports is also good. However, I am inclined to disagree. This is clearly a paradox, and it is a striking blow to religion-based justice systems.

Additionally, I would like to bring up a point made by Plato in The Republic. One of the characters in the book, Thrasymachus, argues that justice is simply a tool that the rich or powerful use to take advantage of the weak. In some cases this is true—when corruption dominates a government, the rich and powerful can use the courts to achieve their own ends. However, this is not what Thrasymachus is really saying—he means that the concept of justice can be used in this way. This is only true in the case of religious tyranny or elite manipulation of government; only in these cases is the entire justice system intended to subjugate the general public. This can also be refuted by the concept of justice as a social contract, which all people submit to for the greater good. Though this is not always a conscious decision, it is often true of many societies.

Next time, I will talk about the relationship between justice systems and utilitarianism.