Criminal Justice

 I want to explore one of the purposes of government as established in the constitution, that of establishing justice. Citizens have the right of dissent from government decisions, although violence ought not to be an option in a free society. Such dissent ought to show respect for the laws since the people have elected their officials to office. The purpose of government that focuses upon establishing a system of justice protects citizens from abuses of government power over citizens and from the attempt of one citizen to exploit another citizen. 

First, the basis for establishing a system of justice as part of the purpose of government is in the ontology of culture, which suggests that human beings naturally form societies to live well and happily. 

However, some persons choose the path of harming others to benefit themselves. They do not respect the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They do not respect the property of others. Society has the right to protect its citizens from such persons, and it does so through establishing a system of justice. The values taught in family and religious communities, we hope, will provide the moral foundation to say no to such a life. However, if that does not happen, government and the legal system have the responsibility to protect its citizens and advance human flourishing by isolating criminal elements from those who participate meaningfully in social institutional life. In doing so, the government and the legal system demonstrate respect for both the victim and the criminal. If government fails in protecting citizens from those who do not participate in society, they weaken the bonds that hold the society together.

         Second, government has a variety of options in reducing crime. 

As part of the system of justice, a significant role for government is to protect all persons from encroachment upon their personal and property rights. For such reasons, governments have established mechanisms of law enforcement and courts. A wide array of sentencing options serves to express community outrage, incapacitate dangerous offenders, deter crime, and offer opportunities for rehabilitation. Government ought to design its justice measures to reduce and eliminate crime, consistent with respect for the basic freedom of persons. Therefore, discrimination and persecution are misuses of these mechanisms of government. 

To the extent that social and economic conditions may lead to crime, the government ought to commit itself to remove those conditions. Further, it may well be that increase in government benefits toward the poor has decreased the level of desperation for the basics in life, resulting in lessening the crime rate. Violence sometimes tracks with an increase in hopelessness, futility, and alienation, and the lessening of such experiences can bring a lessening in crime.

The best option is for law enforcements officials and courts to have positive interaction with the community. However, defunding the police and decriminalizing violent crime will not reduce crime. Smarter policing, tougher sentencing of career criminals, and keeping them in prison longer, can lead to falling crime rates. Hiring more police will reduce the crime rate. This means that the cost of lower crime may well be more Americans behind bars and more children in foster care.

         Third, we need to consider the goal of criminal justice. 

Criminals have already determined what is in their own best interest; society has no right to mold the individual into what is best for society. Criminals are autonomous persons with choices to make like everyone else. For some people, the angry response contained in their violence toward the person and property of others is their way to get society to notice them.

         In most cases, we recognize the motives of the accused person in determining guilt or innocence and in fixing the level of wrongdoing. In this sense, our system respects the dignity of everyone as the author of his or her own character. If some legitimate basis for the anger exists, the forces that shaped the convicted person come into play. In the same way, the impact of the crime upon its victims also becomes part of sentencing. 

However, the notion of hate crimes is disturbing because it is labels thoughts a crime. Focusing upon what one does, rather than thought process, will keep the application of justice as fair as is humanly possible.

Retributive justice holds the offender accountable to the state, and punishment emphasizes accountability. Restorative justice seeks to hold the offender accountable to the victim and community. It seeks to repair the damage and bring healing. Given the situation, this form of the administration of justice may be appropriate. To rehabilitate suggests the society has the right to use the individual to further its own ends. Individuals have the right to respect, apart from usefulness to society. Society punishes criminals simply because they have committed crimes. Punishment needs no other justification. 

Fourth, is there a continuing role for the death penalty?

If a government uses the death penalty, it ought to impose it only for the most serious crimes. The criminal should suffer in proportion to the crime, which is why capital punishment is a just use of societal power.  If society treats individuals with respect, it will respect them as rational beings making choices consistent with what they conceive to be their best interest. Rational beings are responsible for their behavior and society may justly hold them accountable for that behavior when it turns criminal. Society has no obligation to treat people alike, regardless of how they act. The behavior of the other person properly determines, in part, how others treat them. When rational people treat others in criminal ways, they need to experience what it would be like if others treated them the same way, that is, through punishment. Society allows citizens to determine how it will treat them. Theories that deny to punishment any expiatory character subvert the social order. 

However, as part of a system of justice, the death penalty is a tool that governments ought to ban. It denies the possibility of redemption and reconciliation. It shows no respect for the life of the person executed, thereby disrespecting the convict, just as the convict disrespected the life of his or her victim.

I think that what I offer would find much agreement on the political Left as well as well as the political Right.