justice? hah!
it seems that the main thing that the criminal justice system is interested in is remorse.
its interesting to find this christian ideal so deeply embedded in the judicial system.
For the uninitiated here is my beef: there are generally 3 outcomes when dealing with a small criminal offence: guilty, not guilty, and 'alternative measures'. Unlike as on Law and Order, where we find the ultimately useful and the infamous 'no contest plea', our criminals have to be guilty to be found guilty. Further, if you want to do alternative measures you must "take responsibility for the offence". If you want to plead guilty and avoid a trial you must honestly believe that you committed the offence. A lawyer, if you maintain innocence, cannot plead you guilty.
hen is anybody every guilty whole hog? Nobody that i have met commits an offence thinking that they are morally wrong in doing so. There is always some justification, otherwise I dont think a person could commit an offence. Hanna Arendt in the banality of evil explained the story of Eichmann - a simple bumbler who sent jews to their deaths, justifying his actions all along: if i don't act as minister of transport someone else will, i'm just a cog in the wheel, etc. If we can see that even the most gravest of actors would not have taken responsibility for their actions, why do we seek such contrition from the pettiest?
what kind of an outcome are we really after? the pursuit of deepfelt sorriness is costing untold public dollars, and is making the criminal justice system seem artificial and arcane to the participants.
I think that it is a band-aid response to the obvious deficienties of our system. Because we know that we can't just seek to impose punishment in order to keep people in line, ie that punishment/detterence itself wont be sufficient to convert malfeasants into law abiding citizens and because we want the punishment to be a catalyst for catharsis in a persons life, and because we know that this is unlikely to happen, we write it in the rules that they have to act as though it is a great catharsis and they have changed their ways.
Maybe the cynical side of me has taken over. if anyone wants to weigh in on this please do so in the comments. maybe others believe that there is a right and wrong and that some people will actually believe they are wrong - i just cant see it..
its interesting to find this christian ideal so deeply embedded in the judicial system.
For the uninitiated here is my beef: there are generally 3 outcomes when dealing with a small criminal offence: guilty, not guilty, and 'alternative measures'. Unlike as on Law and Order, where we find the ultimately useful and the infamous 'no contest plea', our criminals have to be guilty to be found guilty. Further, if you want to do alternative measures you must "take responsibility for the offence". If you want to plead guilty and avoid a trial you must honestly believe that you committed the offence. A lawyer, if you maintain innocence, cannot plead you guilty.
hen is anybody every guilty whole hog? Nobody that i have met commits an offence thinking that they are morally wrong in doing so. There is always some justification, otherwise I dont think a person could commit an offence. Hanna Arendt in the banality of evil explained the story of Eichmann - a simple bumbler who sent jews to their deaths, justifying his actions all along: if i don't act as minister of transport someone else will, i'm just a cog in the wheel, etc. If we can see that even the most gravest of actors would not have taken responsibility for their actions, why do we seek such contrition from the pettiest?
what kind of an outcome are we really after? the pursuit of deepfelt sorriness is costing untold public dollars, and is making the criminal justice system seem artificial and arcane to the participants.
I think that it is a band-aid response to the obvious deficienties of our system. Because we know that we can't just seek to impose punishment in order to keep people in line, ie that punishment/detterence itself wont be sufficient to convert malfeasants into law abiding citizens and because we want the punishment to be a catalyst for catharsis in a persons life, and because we know that this is unlikely to happen, we write it in the rules that they have to act as though it is a great catharsis and they have changed their ways.
Maybe the cynical side of me has taken over. if anyone wants to weigh in on this please do so in the comments. maybe others believe that there is a right and wrong and that some people will actually believe they are wrong - i just cant see it..
posted by Kieran at 9:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home