Discussing Justice

It seems justice has been on my mind. This has been somewhat exacerbated by the presence of Malcolm Sandel's series [simply entitled 'Justice'] on iPlayer. This series of lectures has highlighted to me several flaws within our way of thinking about Justice. It possible that my views on this point are deeply and unfairly critical but (in the spirit of these posts) I shall pursue regardless.

I suppose the first key flaw I noticed was the fragmented nature of our discussions about morality and legality. These two concepts, whilst overlapping have very different ramifications. It's perhaps best to start by defining these two concepts as I see them: morality as the subjective belief of what is right/wrong; legality as an attempt to translate subjective moral beliefs into 'objective' rules for practical application.

I doubt many would disagree with my definition of morality, but I suspect some might disagree with the ideas defining legality. If only because it does not state whose moral beliefs and what the application actually is. I leave these aspects unclear because currently I don't think we have adequate answers for them.

I mentioned in a previous post that I question the purpose of our legal system. In part because there seems an incomplete connection between this idea of legality and the resultant consequences. I have had many conversations regarding the legalities of an act, but rarely do these conversations cross over into the realm of sentencing or imprisonment.

This strikes me as irrational. Personally I see these final steps as more important than prosecution. I will (as ever) demonstrate my point using hyperbolic analogies. Let's take two acts that are equally illegal: theft and murder. If the murderer were given community service and the thief given life imprisonment, it's unlikely that many would see justice as being served. In this example, the important aspect is not the legality of the act, but what is done with the criminal as a result of that illegality. Murder is worse than theft and therefore the murderer deserves a hasher sentence.

To apply this principle to more contested scenarios, I will mention one that has been previously presented to me: A young woman is terminally ill and begs her mother to end her suffering. The mother searches for an alternate way to assist her daughter without having to end her life and after months of seeing her daughter in agony, she finally gives in to her request and helps her end her life.

My understanding is that under English law assisted suicide is still murder. Regardless of legality, I cannot see what the purpose is of jailing someone for such a crime. The mother does not seem to pose any risk to society, she has not taken any life unwillingly nor against the wishes of any other members of her family. Calling her crime murder means she is judged alongside other murderers, whose crimes I consider far worse and far more dangerous.

The defendant is described as a "devoted mother" acting out of love, rather than malice or disrespect for the lives of others. The key issues for me are: what bad would become of letting her walk free and what could be gained by prosecution, other than the dogmatic implementation of the law?

I suppose now is the time to return to the question of why the law exists. There are of course many ways of implementing the law: fines, prisons, community service, etc. What principles do we believe these fulfil? Do we aim to punish criminals, to prevent crime or to protect citizens becoming the subjects of crime?

Answering these questions seems critical in assessing the validity of our justice system. I personally see little value in punishment, but place great value in prevention and protection. I have previously expressed these views in my post about the prison system.

Using legality as the centre of any argument about a legal case seems unfitting. Really we should talk about what we think should happen as a result.