The series on justice systems is back with a vengeance (pun intended). Today I would like to discuss a justice system that combines a utilitarian rehabilitation system and Heinlein’s “Coventry” (exile) system, which I talked about a few months ago in “Law and order” parts 1-5.This combined system is grounded in both libertarianism and utilitarianism, as it preserves personal responsibility and pragmatic rehabilitation. The reason for combining these seemingly contradictory ideologies is to avoid the practical problems that come from implementing either utilitarianism to an extreme or a form of libertarian justice (such as “rational anarchy”) to an extreme. (A malevolent government can easily manipulate the former, while that latter is ill-adapted to the modern world, since individuals can possess powerful weapons.) This combined system is in no way based on the traditional view of revenge as justice (an eye for an eye).
The system would function as follows: when a citizen breaks a law, he/she is brought before a court, in which the traditional courtroom procedure is used to determine if the accused caused measurable damage to other citizens (or their property) or restricted the freedom of other citizens. If the accused is found guilty, he/she is then given two options: (a) to work in a government labor camp or leave the country to any other country that will allow that person to immigrate, or (b) submit to psychiatric treatment, i.e., the “rehab” system. Should the person leave the country, they cannot re-enter without treatment. If the person chooses to work in a government labor camp, they can decide at any time to submit to treatment. Once a person’s treatment has begun, they cannot opt out of it without serious consequences, similar to joining the army during wartime.
The purpose of giving the person the choice to refuse treatment is to restrict the justice system and stop it from becoming a totalitarian utility monster. It prevents the state from conditioning individuals (because that is what the rehab system essentially is) without their consent, which ensures that the government cannot abuse this power to recondition political enemies or people the state finds undesirable. The reason the damage of a person’s crime must be assessed is also a libertarian theme, based on the idea that an action is not a crime if it harms no one. This, too, restricts the power of government in the social sphere and is a deterrent to fascism.
Of course, there are many practical problems with such a system, especially if a country’s borders are insecure. The combined system also suffers from some of the problems that the rehab system does: there is no assurance that the treatment will work, and there is less of a deterrent to crime than in a traditional system if the treatment is not painful. But overall I believe it is far more ideal than a traditional justice system, especially because it has safeguards that prevent the system from being used for totalitarian ends.
Tomorrow this series may or may not continue, depending on my mood and on what is going on in the world.
2 comments:
Well I have enjoyed this series and hope it can go on a little longer, but I wouldn't mind new discussion on other topics.
I definitely see the benefits of the "Coventry" System, but it does seem to heavily rely on the hope that rehabilitation will be able to successfully prevent future crimes from an individual and the enforcement of borders. If it doesn't work, than: 1) These captured and tried criminals will just continue to do what they do and 2) There is nothing deterring anyone from committing crimes as they will always take the rehabilitation route which leads back to original problem basically creating an endless cycle.
In the case of those who are deported: 1)That same cycle can be applied if they opt for rehabilitation to reenter the country 2) They continue to commit crimes elsewhere in the world or 3)If security simply isn't tight enough, they easily reenter this one by themselves. So therefore, if these problems are met, then a very fine justice system will be created, but if they are not addressed, nothing will be solved.
Btw, I have another poll on my blog that pertains to the "current events" of physics.
Wow way to go with the long comment!
To answer your points:
Yes, like the rehab system Coventry relies heavily on the premise that rehabilitation will work. As for deportation, you are absolutely right: one's borders must be secure for it to work. However, because of credit cards, personal IDs and Social Security the top 70% of the population probably couldn't do too much sneaking around. The bottom rung of the proletariat--think illegal migrant workers--might get away with it, though, and crime is more common in that demographic anyway.
There is also another problem with deportation that I didn't foresee: what industrialized country would accept a criminal? Of course, that might mean that criminals would choose labor camps or treatment rather than deportation, which might alleviate some of the problems you mentioned.
Anyway I think I will devote another post to the rehab system and how it can be made to deter crime. That seems to be the key question in this series.
And nice poll--I think I can guess what the results are going to be.
Post a Comment