Sitting in a courtroom today I was thinking of the two opposing philosophies of justice and punishment. There really are only two basic philosophies when it comes to this subject. One extreme believes that justice is upheld when punishment is meted out in accordance with the crime committed. In a sense, when a wrong is done a punishment must be enacted to restore balance. This view focuses on the wrong act itself, and has as its end to counter the wrong act with a just punishment.
The opposing view is that justice and punishment are meant to reform the wrongdoer. The focus is on the person who commits the crime and not the act of the crime itself. A just punishment, in this instance, is one that brings about a positive change in the individual. The punishment does not need to fit the crime, but rather the criminal.
Of course, in real life you often find some ratio of these two opposing viewpoints play out.
I was in court to testify at the trial of a young man that had done wrong. He had already admitted his wrong. The trial was not meant to determine his guilt or innocence, but rather to determine what a just punishment would be. I was very interested to see which philosophical viewpoint would carry the most weight in the proceedings.
The trial did not take place today. Yet I was still given insight into the basic philosophy of the sitting judge and the representative lawyers. The public defender put forth a motion to have the case tried in juvenile court. The judge asked the prosecuting attorney if she had any objections. She did. She read for the judge a summary of the five previous cases involving this young man that had been tried in juvenile court and his lengthy police record. She argued that the juvenile court had been given a chance to mediate justice, but a continued pattern of criminal behavior demonstrated that it had not been effective. She suggested to the judge that the young man be held accountable for his actions and "see what it is like to wear an orange jumpsuit". "That," she predicted, "would be the best way to deliver justice and to help this young man see the end of the path he has chosen."
Did you notice the very telling indicator in the attorney's last statement? She mentioned both delivering justice and helping the young man. She talked as though they were two separate ideas. Can you guess which line of thinking about justice and punishment she was taking? She was clearly interested in focusing on the act and enacting justice because of the act itself. Secondarily, she was interested in having a positive impact on helping the young man make better decisions in his future.
The public defender also had an opportunity to present his argument to the judge as to why the case should be sent to juvenile court. It played out just as you would expect. He described the young man as a product of his upbringing and his circumstances. This young man wants to do what is right and wants to be a productive citizen, but so many things get in his way. "In fact," said the defender, "he wants to go to college." If the case would go to juvenile court then the young man would have a chance to change his ways and his record could be expunged without jeapordizing his future.
Clearly the defender wanted the judge to focus on the individual rather than the crime. He was pressing the judge to do what would be in the best interest of making a "good citizen" out of the young man instead of righting the wrong that had been committed.
I would love to tell you that the judge, with the wisdom of Solomon, cracked her gavel on the bench and issued a sentence that both upheld the balance of justice by addressing the crime and brought sweeping reform of this young man's life and future. This is not what happened. The judge resigned herself to giving the young man a stern lecture and then dismissing the case to juvenile court. I listened intently to the lecture. The young man was warned to "take a good look at where you are headed and think about the decisions you make." Oh, I am so glad someone finally thought to give this young man such sage advice. Something tells me this judge is not the first person to counsel this young man in such a way. I am also fairly certain that this young man could care less what the judge was saying to him. After all, she had already made the decision that she would not determine any punishment. Why, then, would he need to heed what she had to say. My personal point of view is that a punishment fitting the crime would have made a much more lasting impression than any black-robed, hollowly-worded lecture from behind a dusty bench.
0 comments:
Post a Comment