One of the things that comes up quite regularly is the flawedness of various justice systems, whether it’s a debate about capital punishment or a the death of some innocent person while incarcerated.
So let’s imagine that we have avaliable to us a perfect justice system; Justicebot 2012. Not only does it, with 100% accuracy, sort the innocent from guilty, it also tells us exactly what each participant did, and even what they were thinking as they did it. It examines the current laws that are applicable to the case in question, and finally comes up with an exactly correct measure of guilt against those laws for the/each defendant.
What Justicebot 2012 cannot yet do, however, is decide on its own what penalties should be metered out. We’re going to need to program it in order to set up what’s an appropriate punishment for each crime before we send it off to hear cases. There’s already set punishments, or punishments limits, on the books; the question is, however, does the existence and avaliability of a perfect justice system change your opinion on what those punishments should be?
I’ve always felt that more drastic punishments should be limited to those cases where you go beyond what is incorrectly called “beyond a reasonable doubt”, this just makes it easier to achieve that level of reliability.
It is foolish, however, to claim it has anything to do with justice. It provides omniscience, it does not guarantee that said knowledge is not misused.
Presumably the ability to know exactly what people were thinking when they commited each crime will come in handy. Hopefully at least a few of them will have been thinking, “Man, I hope I don’t get more than if I’m caught. That would totally not be worth it!” Then we can set the penalty at, say, [X + 15%] (to allow for variation).
It’s not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination.The biggest flaws in most systems is not the ascertaining of guilt or innocence which are relatively easy to do, but the proper allocation of time and resources.
So your system does absolutely nothing for a quite common case where a judge does not want to send an offender to prison, but drug therapy places are reduced. Or anything about reducing the backlog of cases that many systems must bear with. Or the common paucity of trained staff to assist judges.
I also note that the system is geared exclusively towards the criminal side of things. Civil cases, such as family matters, probate court and judicial review of public actions, things which are more likely to concern an individual get nary a look in.
So this system is like thus. “Guilty!” “Sentence you in 3 months time, earliest date we can get. Probably be prison, sorry, love to send you to rehab, but budget cuts mean less places and you cannot afford it out of pocket anyway. Hopefully we will get a case officer to interview you before the sentencing and if we are in luck, she will be ablebto devote all necessary time to you and if you are exceptionally fortunate, the judge will have time to read the report in detail before sentence.”
Justicebot appears to violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, and possibly 8th Amendments. As such, it cannot be used without removing those protections.
Even if the constitutional issues were resolved by further amendments, or even a brand new constitution, Justicebot shouldn’t be used. There should not be a “one size fits all” approach to criminal sentencing. Each case should be considered on its particular facts. Does a man that stole a loaf of bread to feed his children deserve the same punishment as a guy that stole a car for joyriding?
We don’t really want to catch everyone for everything. Say we catch someone for selling drugs. Then we can tell that he’s actually sold drugs 500 times before he was caught. So now do we convict him on 500 separate counts?
Play along, that is sort of what the OP is asking. This is a relevant question to the new justice/ punishment system. Do we even base it on counts any longer? Constitutional matters are also completely irrelevant. The OP is hypothetical, and we can assume that we’ve amended the constitution to allow for Justicebot. What we are being tasked with is the creation of a punishment system based on a near-perfect assumption of guilt and innocence. FTR I’ll state that a perfect system isn’t really possible, but I’ll operate as if Justicebot’s margin of error is so small as to be non-existent in the large matter of technical guilt or innocence. Assuming that, the following:
Sentences may not be stacked up in cases where the death penalty is relevant, no more than 3 sequential sentences per victim may apply at a time, not to exceed 75 years total. Justicebot does not understand mitigating circumstances, so sentencing guidelines must be developed to ensure proper punishment. I’m not going to go into what constitutes mitigateing factors, but only suggest certain punishments. Items in Bold italics are new terms I’m suggesting to replace, combine or address a specific problem that I feel is inadequately handled currently.
Re-instatement of the death penalty in cases of premeditated murder, while the elimination of the option in all non-premeditated cases.
In cases of non-premeditated murder, mandatory 25 year sentence. Negligent homicide:0-10 as appropriate Terrorism: Death
Rape: 25 mandatory Sexual assault: 1-3 or counseling as appropriate Sexual misconduct: 0-1 or counseling as appropriate Pedophilia: 25 mandatory, death upon second offense. For the purposes of justicebot, we shall define this term as sexual intercourse, or assault on a minor under the age of 13 by a person of majority age (18) or older. Other permutations shall fall under Sexual Assault when appropriate. Justicebot shall recognize an age of consent of 13 at the time of the incident.
Economic Terrorism This term covers illegal activity by companies in position of the public trust and welfare (too big to fail) where damages exceed 500 million dollars. Persons found guilty of economic terrorism shall be subject to a mandatory max sentence of 75 years. Corporations are subject to dissolution. Economic Sabotage This term covers theft, embezzlement, larceny, and all other white collar crime where the damage to victims exceeds 50 million dollars (to be adjusted for inflation as necessary) 25-max, 25 mandatory Grand theft 25 Mandatory petty theft 0-10 as appropriate
Well fine then, I’ll think of a brilliant answer for that later.
Wow, so you can sexually assault teenagers or adults all you want as long as you don’t have actual intercourse with them, and all you get is 1-3 years or even counseling?
And if a 40-year-old man can talk a 13-year-old into having sex with him, then that’s cool? You have some strange ideas, dude.
Yes; because Justicebot has perfect recall, and the ability to infer intent. Either something is rape or it isn’t. We can program it with whatever definitions we choose for the crime. We have a problem with sexual issues because our biology doesn’t always agree with our metal/cultural development. The interaction you describe is creepy and gross, but if both consent and do not revoke consent during the encounter then it isn’t rape. It’s just creepy and gross. We could easily allow a provision of +5 years for a partner’s age until the younger partner reaches 18 to allow for Romeo and Juliet cases and get rid of the creepy guy you described. That would then fall under a form of sexual assault perhaps. Either way though, we need to make a real and meaningful distinction between the two crimes. As any number of threads on this board have demonstrated, there is significant debate about what should constitute “rape”. I didn’t define that term for that reason.
It should and will definitely change what the punishment is. I already think we prosecute thoughts, but I have no problems with it. First degree murder and 2nd degree and manslaughter is essentially all murder, but the murderer’s thoughts and feelings are taken into account.
We punish 1st degree more because that murder has a higher chance of killing again vs. the guy who did it on accident. But to the person who died, or his family, dead is dead. A person didn’t get more dead if he was accidentally ran over with a car vs. shot in a robbery. So yeah, we should take into account what a person is thinking, that’s only right. We don’t do that now, for the most part, because we don’t have a perfect system in order to do it. We can only infer what people were thinking based on their actions. But if can peer into someone’s thoughts, we should definitely punish them accordingly
Given the existence of the perfect Justicebot, all punishments should be based on the action, not the consequences. Five people who get in five bar fights and beat up five drunks should all get simliar sentence (assuming similar levels of malice and brutality) even if unlucky placement of the blows meant that one of the drunks died, while others got up and walked away.
I think this sort of question brings up an interesting paradox in our legal system. To be just, the punishment should more or less match the damage done by the crime, or more likely, an equitable amount of jail time. However, when considering this, it doesn’t really seem particularly just. Consider two individuals, one of whom intends to kill a person and succeeds, the second of whom intends to kill the person but fails. If punishment is assigned in such a way, while both are guilty of intending to kill someone, only the first is guilty of actually killing someone and, in a sense, the second person is rewarded for their incompetence.
But if we go the other way and assign the punishment based on intent now we have an interesting case where two men are drunk driving, one just does some property damage whereas the second hits a person and paralyzes or kills him. The second person did significantly more real damage but both get a similar punishment. This seems unjust to me as well.
In a system where we can be sure of both the actions of someone and their thoughts, how should we weigh intent and result when determining the punishment for a crime? We do this to some extent already, with first and second degree murder and all of that, but now we’ll have a lot more subtlety in the law. Should someone who has absolute intent to kill someone and leaves him for dead but doesn’t kill him deserve more of a penalty than someone who gets in a fight in a moment of passion and doesn’t really intend to kill but does anyway? So even in a perfect justice system, it’s going to be inherently imperfect.
I would be FAR more comfortable with the death penalty as an avilable punishment.
I think that we could devote a lot more effort to just catching suspects and asking Justicebot if we got the right guy and a lot less time trying to figure out if we have enough evidence to figure out if we got the right guy. It would also be very useful in civil litigation.
A mindreading robot has all sorts of other really useful applications as well. Perhaps hook up candidates to these robots during political debates.
Whew… Gotta disagree. Yes, it might seem strange, in an objective viewpoint, that two men perform the exact same physical assault…and one is just an assailant, while the other is a murderer. The latter guy was just unlucky (?) enough to pick a victim with a weak heart. So it goes.
It might seem strange, but I think it better reflects true justice. The harm done to society, and to the victim’s family, is much greater in the latter case. There is more than requires restitution or punishment.
I would be more sympathetic to the notion that both convict’s rehabilitation be the same. They both intended just to throw a punch, and this behavior is what needs addressing.
But since the latter bloke did a lot more harm, he also needs to be held to a heavier punishment.
(Otherwise, this could be taken as an indirect consent for people to fire rifles randomly out over cities, or drop bricks randomly onto freeways. “I only intended the demonstration, not the consequence.”)
If we’re dealing with two sociopaths who try to murder an innocent bystander for no good reason, is one less worthy of punishment just because he’s incompetent?
Yes. They’re both guilty of attempted murder, which is no laughing matter; one, in addition, is a murderer per se, and deserves a harsher penalty.
In the same way, I am perfectly cool with a lesser sentence for, say, Lynnette Fromme, because she failed in her attempt to kill Gerald Ford. She failed; that’s a nice bit of luck for Ford…and for her.
I don’t necessarily want to reward incompetence, but it also seems silly to punish people for things they didn’t actually do.
If the only thing that stopped someone from committing a crime was some factor outside their control, then i’d say they should be punished equally as another person who succeeded. If we have the two bar assailants, one who deliberately beats someone to death, while the other lands a blow which ends up killing his weak-hearted opponent, sure, that’s not the same thing. One of them meant to kill, the other didn’t, even if the end result was the same. On the other hand, if our first guy succeeds in beating his opponent to death, and the second guy also intended to do so except that he didn’t realise that his blows with lethal intent were softened by a protective vest, both are equally guilty even though one guy didn’t succeed. He deliberately intended it, he took deliberate and potentially successful steps towards it; the actual result is unimportant (well, except to the victim, I guess).
Within the constraints of the OP, I’d be comfortable with charging people for the maximum crime as determined by the intent discovered/ vs act committed. That is to say, the intent will determine the category of the charge, while the act must determine the severity. This system is currently in place in terms of “attempted” charges. With Justicebot, this takes on a much more relevant, and legitimate notion than its current use. “attempted murder” for example is different than assault or murder itself. However, since JB can determine that our suspect did indeed intend to murder his victim, (even though he got away and lived), we charge it as A.M. rather than assault. Likewise, if someone died in a bar fight because of a weak heart, JB could determine that the assailant who threw the fatal blow had no intention of killing the poor fellow, and would eliminate murder as a category for charges, perhaps returning a result of “accidental homicide”, or some form of assault instead.
Ethically speaking, intent is everything in criminal cases. Our current system is in place because we do not have a perfect, (or so close as to be indistinguishable) system of obtaining the relevant facts and intent about a case. JB eliminates that problem and leaves us only to determine punishment. The punishment needs to fit the crime, and perfect reading of intent allows us to be much more judicious in our application of retribution. It isn’t all about just making the victim’s or their families feel better. If it was, we’d have the death penalty for lots of crimes.
We don’t do that, now, in the real world, even when intent can very clearly be established. I don’t see the existence of the JusticeBot making that much of a difference.
I have to disagree; we don’t do it that way in our world because the legal system does not agree with your philosophical interpretation. The real world holds intent and results to be important.
With, or without, JusticeBot, I would disagree on relying solely on intent to adjudicate criminal cases.
I agree that there is a level of absurdity in charging a guy with assault and battery…and waiting for two years…whereupon the victim dies and the charge is changed to murder. But I think that relying only on intent and not on outcome is more absurd. It would entail punishing people for things that they didn’t actually do, and I can think of few worse miscarriages of justice.
Quite the opposite: it would entail punishing people for acting with a criminal disregard for the rights of others, and not for the vagaries of fate that lie beyond their control. If someone tries to murder a police officer, for example, they would be punished for pointing a gun at an innocent person and pulling the trigger - something they actually did. If the ambulance crew manages to mitigate the damage by resuscitating the cop, that does not change what the would-be murderer did, and tried to do, only what his actions achieved.