Very long post alert :) Good bad and justice is all a soup when you try to idealize the world. It is hard to distinguish or determine good or bad. Justice is mostly about fairness and punishment of bad. So measuring bad and applying equal punishment is also hard. But actually that is why we have brains. Our brain has complexity levels and we don't just operate on raw data. We are meant to try to figure out the best way of finding good, bad and justice.
First, right or wrong is subjective sometimes and must be evaluated according to the situation. Unless you anchor your actions to god, you don't have a definition of right or wrong for everything. Even though you want to have a god to tell you about right and wrong, you will have subjective and opinionated situations. So when you actually judge something or someone, you have to choose the right thing and it is a heavy duty.
Right and wrong and good and bad is not actually that easy. Helping a 2 year old child get up when the kid falls is kind of a good thing. But if you do it all the time, the kid won't learn how to walk at all. Bullying a person is bad but being a bully to overpower other bullies can be good. Keeping secrets from your parents is considered as bad but a kid can help his friend and give him money and keep this a secret, so that his friend is not ashamed. Lying is mostly bad but you can lie to a person to push them away from you. Maybe you have 6 months of life left and you don't want any new attachments. I am sure you can list a number of different circumstances where good and bad is kind of mixed or blurred.
We, the normal people, usually consider we can be wrong about things. We are not always 100% sure of ourselves or our actions or our knowledge. That is why we usually say "don't judge too quickly". Because judging is based on our good and bad or right and wrong perceptions. Also we forgive the wrong behaviour sometimes, if it is unintentional. These are all part of humanity, learning and adapting for lifetime. Because we know we sometimes just don't know. We know mistakes can happen. So in real life, normal people won't be too keen on good or bad or right or wrong, except for the "know it all"s.
But if we want to start talking about justice, we must have a definition of crime. Hurting someone, stealing things? Could hiding the facts can be a crime too? Could negligence be a crime too? I don't mean to draw boundaries here, I actually wonder how can humankind come up with a common definition of crime. As we see in good or bad, right or wrong, things are blurry and context dependent. But on top of that, can good be a crime or bad not be a crime?
Let's focus on justice now and well known good or bad situations instead of diving into a rabbit hole of subjective opinions. Justice is fairness right? But how do you be fair? For example, if someone steals some money from you, justice is taking the money back to you right? But it is not preventive. There must be more than taking the money back, there must be a punishment to keep people away from stealing. So most of the time, justice turns into punishment for correction.
Another well known bad situation can be a car crash. Someone can hit your car and injure you, let's say break your arm. In this situation, are you going to break the other driver's arm and damage their car too? Equalization is not a good idea of justice, we can all agree on it. So after breaking the driver's arm and damaging their car, are you going to make the driver pay for damage and hospital bills too? This seems weird but also where is the prevention signal in that? Jail time? Lifelong debt? I have no idea actually :D But let's make it more complicated. You might be working in a construction or something and you can't work with a broken arm for weeks. So how can the driver compensate that? You want more complexity? Maybe I am emotionally damaged because of the accident and it left a trauma. This can go wild. How can you be fair in this situation? It feels like at some point, the guilty person is usually less affected, event though you have good intentions.
Another example of justice: Let's say I create a piece of software and I am going to make money out of it for the rest of my life. If someone steals it, he also steals my whole future. So what is fair here? I don't exactly know about the world but I don't think any country would give 10 years of jailtime for theft since most countries have predetermined windows of punishment. But the result of that theft is huge for me. Well, I understand that if you want a tailor-made solution to each crime, it gets too opinionated. But if you set preset punishments, there is a good chance that fairness is lost.
Another example of justice: Someone kills someone and you need to collect evidence right? Innocent unless proven is actually a good approach but you know people can get rid of evidence. So if you want to be fair, you also be super efficient with evidence. Furthermore, we have lots of falsely accused people too, just because evidence points them out. So you have to consider the suspect too right? Are you confident, or trying to be confident, to assess the mental or physical situation of the suspect? Isn't that a vital prerequisite for judgement?
Another example about justice, what about the crimes against government or country? Or bigger issues like polluting the oceans and atmosphere? We can all agree on these are bad but what is the fair punishment? If you ask me, the answer looks like execution because causing irreparable damage to world and humankind. But when I say execution, some people will say it is inhumane. Well, I can never say what is fair and what is not and neither can you. This is sort of debatable and I will write about it below.
What about corrective side of justice. I am mostly talking about deliberate crimes here. If a person is conscious of what he/she is doing, they can be held accountable. That will power usually raises the responsibility bar and therefore the punishment. But some people also believe corrective punishment. I believe in that too but I have 2 questions: Will jail time correct a person? Or another aspect, will cleaning the streets correct a person? You must be taking chances when you believe in correction. So eventually, I give up on people actually being corrected and I guess that might feel like I am a bit of a dictator.
With our limited knowledge or vision, it is really hard to establish true justice. If my vehicle is stolen, I can't ask for a billion dollars for emotional damage, that is wiliness. But if I am somehow wronged, the extends of the situation can be radically different than others. But that doesn't mean stealing from a rich person is ok. But it is also way less harmful to a rich people. Killing a person is usually bad but is killing a child abuser that bad? Can I determine my own sentence for my own victimization? Can someone else do that on my behalf?
We are tolerant when it comes to distinguishing good and bad, right and wrong. But can we be tolerant when justice is not served the "right way"? Consider this: If you believe in a god, there are 2 kinds of sins. One against god, one against people. God can judge with his unlimited knowledge. But who can be the equalizer amongst the people? Don't ask me I have no idea :D But if you are serious about justice, the right kind is necessary, so that both sides get what they deserve.
Late justice is usually not justice. Someone kills the daughter of a mother and years after mother dies and killer is found and jailed. Well, good for you. You let a mother live in agony. So yes, justice is also a matter of timing.
One more aspect of justice, is punishment must be too oppressive? If you have some set of rules and you want to enforce it, will you be a tyrant? If we take humans tendencies to making mistakes, some people will say "yes eye for an eye" kind of thing. Some people will say "educate rather than punish". I am literally in the middle of these two :) Purposeful crime requires some intention, and I kind of think that intention doesn't actually go away easily.
But there is another gray area about the humans too. What if people are forced to criminal activity or just raised inside a bad neighborhood? Does being poor justify stealing from rich people? Or if some kid grows up with abuse or problematic friends, will you ruthlessly punish him for using a gun at 18? We humans can have compassion but there is definitely a point where we start assuming things about others and that is dangerous. So are you going to give "soft" power vibes or "hammer" vibes when you apply justice? What if people starts taking advantage of it? This whole blog post contains questions, in fact, this one might have the record number of questions :)
One more interesting question: Does the "preset" punishments have the same effect on everyone? This is a controversial statement but let me say it. If you lock away a billionaire for 1 year, given that you have the power to do it, how much they will be affected compared to a "not so rich" father or a mother with kids? Does your "sentence" cover the variety of conditions? Well, I think this is why laws have some interpretability in themselves.
What about insult or hate speech? Does words actually hurt someone? Does words hurt when tweeted? If someone hates a person, how can you punish hate speech? If a person hates a country or some religion or some gender, does it hurt anyone by itself and would you wait for that intention to turn into action? Does insulting words against a religious figure deserves punishment? If so, are you trying to be fair, or prevent further crimes or correct the criminal? You may not find this much logical, but I think most of the actionless speech should not be punished. Because that punishment can contain ulterior motives at the hands of corrupt systems. But I am sure there are exceptions. If a child is affected, it is a crime. If it is consistent towards anyone, it is a crime. But these are just my narrow opinions.
What about the lawyers? Would you suggest that regardless of the crime, does everyone have the opportunity to get a lawyer? If a lawyer appointed to a mass murderer, should he/she try their utmost effort to defend them? Or is it only about giving people the opportunity do defend themselves with proper channels? I would have a code of conduct if I were a lawyer to never defend certain criminals, who are proved guilty.
There is another thing about lawyers and it is closely tied to money. These days, in the corrupt systems and countries, the more lawyers you have, the more rights you have. Because they can financially drain you by throwing numerous tactics on you to defend yourself, assuming they are not already mafia themselves. You can't even make a case against big corporations for example. But the problems is not about justice there, it is about money being able to buy anything and it is mostly fueling unfair power.
What about intentions? If someone intents to kill but fails even without any harm, will you disregard the intention? I am assuming the real intention is bright as daylight, otherwise there is no way of knowing the actual intention right? Or maybe someone steals a gun from someone thinking about killing someone, will you punish for theft? You have to know the real intention too if you want to be correct.
What about local laws? I believe human rights are given to humans and protected by god but maybe some country tolerates some misbehavior. Or maybe some country it is punishable by death. If the same crime is regulated lightly in another country, I feel like this is questionable. Just because you interpret the actions differently doesn't mean the results are different. How will you find a common ground? There is also the element of correction or prevention side of laws, but again, one country puts emphasis on correction and sentences the criminal to public service while another punishes by death. Which one is correct or fair, who can tell?
Lastly, 2 questions, relatively related. Who decides what is fair and what is not? What about religion and god? If you want to enforce god's rules, are they always so clear for every situation? How are you going to interpret them? How confident are you? Or maybe you want a jury or some elites to decide. Regardless of the legal basis whether it is god or some constitution, WHO IS ELECTED to serve justice? Who gave them the power. Well obviously someone will be responsible for this, since we don't have god's direct commands everyday. Or if you have definitions of crimes, it won't have 1 billion different situations or cases. Decide to base your law on god or not, deciding what is fair is hard and subjective and it is carried out by some people. Ideally more than 1 person of course :)
Maybe you might think I suggest a world like wild west where everyone establishes their own justice where no police or law exits. No, absolutely not. Just because there are circumstantial variability, doesn't mean you must have the infinite flexibility. Everyone-for-themselves logic would never ever work with humans and we all know it, since everyone has different definitions of "themselves". But I also know there is something called self-defense which is a birth right. So will you ban people from having guns to prevent possible rage sprees or will you give people guns to let them have some justice for themselves?
At this point, I am sure there are other aspects of law and legal systems that I have missed. There is a great risk of not properly establishing justice even if we want to. Being human is all about being able to pilot your way through circumstances, rather than relying on instructions like a machine. And that piloting requires self-control and self-doubt and analytical thinking. It is not about keenly knowing what is good or bad. It is about trying to walk towards good. Avoiding bad doesn't even have to stem from fear of god. But as primitive creatures, primitive as in lacking the control over our brain, we need some sort of reminder almost constantly. We need a daily reminder of "towards good, avoid bad". My thought in all this mess: I would try to rely on god's guidance on what is good or bad or fair, not myself, but I don't have direct access and I have limited resources :)
Also, if we claim to serve justice, we have to know that is it more than just distinguishing right and wrong or good and bad. That is a responsibility beyond any duty in this world. This may be controversial but I don't think humans can't actually really establish justice in this world. Side note, you are insane if you want to use AI powered preventive (surveillance based) justice. I don't say all the judicial systems in world is flawed. Just acknowledge that you are deriving conclusions based on already blurry concepts, also prone to corruption with money. But do I have any concrete way of serving justice? Actually at this point, in the light of this blog post, you shouldn't even ask this question to me. See you at the next post :)
Leave a comment