(Image from Google images)
Intro
Locke and Hobbes are two philosophers that assess how and why social structures are formed. From their respective states of nature, two views are established about the world without justice. Hobbes’s state of nature is characterized as being chaotic and Locke’s as being disconnected. Though different, both states of nature make it evident that social contracts and justice are needed to create a world in which people will prosper and survive.
In class, the formation of corrective systems in society wasn't really covered. It lead me to reflect about the current judicial system. With the judicial system in my mind, we received the lecture about games in life. This reminded me of a philosophy that proves that the U.S. judicial system is a moral lottery game.
Defining Justice
To be able to understand the “justice as a game" theory, justice has to be defined:
Definition of JUSTICE[1]
The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
A necessity in society is a set of standards or laws that people follow. By breaking a law, the person not only hurts the victim, but also society by breaking its trust (social contract). Therefore the judicial system’s obligations are not only to the individuals, but to the society as a whole.
The punishment that leaves something to chance
Now that justice is defined, I will start with the idea of justice as a game.
Fast-forward many years past Locke’s and Hobbes’s ideas about the “state of nature” and “social contracts” to a place where human society has evolved in complexity and in structures. Being an integral part of society, the judicial system also has evolves. In the United Sates, the judicial system not only checks and balances its citizens, but other branches of government as well. Being such an important part of society, it is no surprise why people are very opinionated and passionate about the judicial system
In The punishment that leaves something to chance, David Lewis challenges present beliefs about the judicial system. To him, many people see the judicial system as a way of retribution. In peoples’ retribution viewpoint, the criminal is punished based on the results of his crime. To Lewis, this is not a useful understanding of the system because the purpose of the judicial system is to support and maintain society. Therefore, criminals shouldn't be disciplined on the crime's results, but on their intent (reasoning and resolve) to break the laws of society.
For David Lewis, the judicial system does judge based on intent, but the retribution views misinterpret and muddle the true framework of the system. To be able to prove that the judicial system is indeed intent-based and not result-based, Lewis uses the medium of a probability/lottery game.
The Game
Lewis reviews the crime of murder to explain his stance. With this example, Lewis can form a distinct difference between the result-based and intent-based views. In Lewis’s view, a dead body shouldn't determine the punishment. Results do not directly correspond with the intent. For instance, lets take two different criminals that have a pistol aimed at victims’ head. One guy sneezes while he shoots and misses, while the other guy kills his victim. These guys had the same intent but will receive drastically different punishments.
This doesn't seem right.
How can our judicial system be morally correct if two equal criminals get punished so differently based on luck?
This is where David Lewis brings in his lottery/game system to verify and moralize the U.S. court system. Through a series of steps, he takes a foreign game-like judicial system and molds it to the current U.S. judicial system.
Step one. Lewis needs a way to measure intent to be able to dictate punishment. He determines that intent is linked to how much harm the victim was put in during the crime. Through the evidence, an exact percent of “chance of death” (death percent) is found. Black and white balls are then placed in a bag that is equal to this “death percent”. Therefore, the criminal faces the same probability of death as his victim. One ball is drawn from the bag and if black, the criminal loses and gets the death penalty. If white, the criminal wins and gets a minimum/low sentence. This system is fair because it puts the criminal in the same position as the victim and punishes based on intent. Step two is introduced because of practicality.
Step two. The percent harm or probability of death is a hard figure to calculate. The criminal’s plans, ideas, skill, weapons, etc. are all relevant in calculating the harm the victim was in. This makes the calculations too difficult and too time consuming to make. To be able to find the “death percent” in easier method, Lewis suggest that the crime should be enacted in-front of the jury who then determines the "death percent". Then, like in step one, that percent corresponds to the number of black and white balls in the bag and one ball is drawn. Still though, Lewis thinks the “death percent” is too difficult to calculate and can even be prone to errors due to the judgment of the jury. Step three is necessary to make this lottery system define the current U.S. judicial system and smooth out the “death percent.”
Step three. How can the “death percent” and drawing be executed expediently and without error? The thing is, the exact "death percent" has already been calculated along with the drawing. In this final step, the death percent and drawing are re-imagined into the likes of different event. The "death percent" is replaced with the actual crime because being the actually crime, it reveals the exact harm the victim was in. Next the drawing is replaced by the life of the victim in the crime. The life of the victim can work as the drawing because the life of the victim and the drawing are equally dependent on the “death percent." For instance a dead victim represents the black ball and an alive victim represents the white ball. The probability of both the outcomes happening (life or death) is due to the true crime's "death percent." Now, the drawing and percent do not need to be calculated or drawn because the crime automatically calculates the "death percent" and then inputs that into the drawing that is now the death or survival of the victim.
By David Lewis redefining the crime as the “death percent” and the drawing as the "life of the victim", he makes the U.S. judicial system intent-based and not result-based. Step three demonstrates the U.S. Judicial system because in a real case, the crime is reviewed and the jury judges the punishment based on the life of the victim.
So yes, in the end, the U.S. judicial system resembles a lottery game.
(Google images)
References
Lewis, David The punishment that leaves something to chance. Philosophy & Public Affairs. Vol. 18, No. 1 (Winter, 1989), Princeton University Press
Political Philosophy: Machiavelli to Mill. Compiled and edited by Mark C. Rooks.
Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation, 1992. Used under the Fair Use guidelines.
I agree that our judicial system has many flaws including the one you have pointed out that intent and premeditation of a crime should be considered more even if the crime didn't actually take place. However, when undressing our current judicial system its important to consider that it can be very difficult, in some situations, to convict a persons of a crime based on intent to harm someone. We can't know exactly what that person was thinking unless there is strong evidence. There are many less obvious situations that come into question then someone pointing a gun at some one else, for example if you were driving a car and intended to hit some one or if it was ancient.
ReplyDelete