The Verdict On Justice
An Insight Into The Formation And Current Nature Of The Justice System
B. N. Dent
RELEASED IN 2015, NETFLIX’S TWO-PART DOCUMENTARY SERIES, Making a Murderer, unpacks the true story of an American man who served 18 years in prison for sexual assault, of which he was not guilty. Then, just two years after his release from this wrongful sentence, a jury found him guilty of murder and he was sentenced to life in prison, despite the rugged and incohesive case put together by the prosecution.
The harrowing series left me stunned by the levels of corruption and blatantly unjust criminal proceedings, ultimately causing me to question the present state of the judicial system. Now, in being aware of the perils of anarchy, I can comfortably admit that the need for a system of law enforcement is essential. However, I am unnerved by the solidity of this system and its true reliability in being able to fairly enforce laws and deliver complementarily-just punishments to individuals within our society. Because at the end of the day, when you break down who or what is in charge of moderating and managing this intricate system, it is not a supercomputer, or a set of thousands of perfectly crafted legal documents that are guaranteed to provide a universally correct ruling; it is humans. Humans that were once little babies incapable of walking or talking, humans that were once toddlers who would test the limits of their mouths by putting sharp objects inside, humans that would go into a footy match against Kings thinking they could genuinely win. My point is that the propensity for error that lies within all humans, regardless of qualifications, titles, or accolades, is irrefutable. And therefore, in the case of the justice system, when we place such error-prone beings in positions of power, we create liability, and the potential for unjust rulings.
At present, what I am stating is nothing nuanced, the problem of granting humans authority has been a prevalent issue considered by all societies over the course of history, and it explains the instillment of contemporary power checks we have in society today. It is for this reason that we have constitutional limits which restrict the powers of government and promote individual freedom; it is for this reason that students over six feet tall who elect to participate in a summer sport other than rowing are not expelled from Shore (even though they should be); and it is for this reason that democracy has prevailed. How do we eliminate the negative effects of concentrated power? Provide power to all!
Upon assessing the evolution of all justice systems across various societies (ancient or modern) up until now, we can observe that the general trend indicates that these systems have been increasingly moving towards a paradigm that promotes individual autonomy to express innocence, thus alleviating the traditional power imbalance between the prosecutor and defendant, in the hopes of creating a fairer system. To help understand this, we can examine the foundational ideas behind the inception of one of the first ever known justice systems. An example of such is the Code of Hammurabi, established by the Babylonian King Hammurabi, which dates back to ancient Mesopotamia at around 1754 BCE. The code consisted of 282 laws that covered various aspects of daily life, including commerce, property rights and criminal offenses, and it sought to maintain social order by ensuring that people were held accountable for their actions. However, a key flaw in this system came from the fact it was heavily influenced by the principle of social hierarchy, whereby different classes were subject to different consequences for the same crime.
The original Code of Hammurabi engraved in stone.
Consequentialist ethics describes a normative ethical theory which proposes that some individuals will choose to act ethically only in the pursuit of personal benefit or the avoidance of negative consequences. So, when we consider consequentialist ethics, we can better understand the inception of justice systems and our ongoing need for them. However, the constant evolution of such systems, and prevalence of injustice, exposes some of their flaws. With relation to the individuals responsible for enforcing these systems of governance, it is not only due to the innate nature of humans to make errors, which I have already touched on, but also emotionally driving forces which can provoke humans into making decisions fuelled by corruption or self-interest that can ultimately lead to improper outcomes of the justice system.
To conclude, next time you are convicted of a Friday, consider whether or not you were given a voice to express your innocence, then ask yourself if, in your opinion, proper proceedings were taken in the enactment of your punishment, then get on with your day.