Last class, we talked about two concepts that help explain how justice works, the Golden Mean and the idea of a zero sum game. Of the two, the zero sum game idea spoke to me and made me think about how it would work. After examining the belief that a situation in which one's gain or loss is balanced by the losses or gains of others would result in justice, I came to the conclusion that the American justice system is more flawed and less just that I had originally thought.
In class, we touched on the fact that in the American justice system, an assault on one's life could be equated with a certain amount of time in prison, a rather unequal exchange. However, we failed to discuss that fact that in today's society, one can sue for almost anything and receive some sort of compensation. I'm not talking about the cases in which a person is unjustly wronged and deserves some kind of payback, but in the situations where people cheat the system and sue foe ridiculous things and receive a hefty amount of money.
In 2003, a woman sued McDonald's for causing her husband to gain 200 pounds. Though it can technically be considered an injustice since her husband did not know that eating McDonald's would cause a weight gain, her reward of $1.35 million is disproportionate. At the very most, a Gastric Bypass Surgery, which could remove her husband's fat, costs $65,000. This means that the wife receieved $1.26 million more than was necessary for it to be a zero sum game.
While Aristotle's "mertiocrocy" works in a completely just world, it is not the standard for the American justice system. When people constantly prove that exchanges between actions and punishments are unequal, it causes me to wonder if a soceity in which there is a sort of zero sum game for punishments can truly exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The aftermath of trials in the US justice system may seem to have an unequal exchange; however, I think that comes more from the American belief that everyone deserves a fair trial rather than an adherence to the law. Most of the laws are made to impose a maximum fine or a maximum sentence rather than say for a certain crime x you receive a certain jail sentence y. If we accepted a system that is closer to that then trials would almost be superfluous. I don't know if Aristotle ever framed a justice system as a zero-sum game, but a trial by jury or judges that have the ability to impose a stronger sentence based on the circumstances of the crime eliminates that. In a zero-sum world trials would only determine guilt or innocence, never sentence. Sentences would have to be predetermined as well, requiring extensive work by some legislative body.
ReplyDeleteI do think that we do have some form of a zero-sum game at the local level. If you run a stop sign everyone pays the same amount for a ticket. That's the only example I can think of right now though.
Even though we have already discussed this in class, I believe, I'll bring it up again. I believe Guy is correct in the idea that the laws themselves are not flawed (the majority, at least. certainly we may disagree with the moral backing behind certain laws). The issue is in fair distribution of the punishments that face those who break the law. Why is it that certain individuals are "let off" by the officials of the law, when others are punished to the fullest extent for the same crime of running a stop sign or exceeding the speed limit? When people describe a cop as being really kind, it is often because he only gave them a warning for not stopping at a stop sign or turning left on Union. Truthfully, he is increasing the likelihood that an individual will repeat the offense, possibly endangering other individuals.
ReplyDeleteActually, federal courts in the United States to have strict rules for maximums and minimum sentences. They actually run on a system of points that determines the appropriate sentence according to the mitigating circumstances (such as repeat offender, amount of money involved, gun involvement, etc). The judges are then given a range of time that the convicted should serve and pay as a fine, and usually are unable to stray from that range. Also interesting to note is the fact that prosecutors are many times the people who are stipulating plea agreements an what they are actually going to try you for. It is also up to them to prove to the judge or jury that all of the points are justified. In reality, the only judges who are actually passing judgment (as opposed to just following bureaucratic guidelines) are those judges higher up in the appellate courts.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that we are a great example of how zero sum justice can remove judgment from justice; the question is whether or not that is good or bad. I must say that the evidence seems to point to the latter.
ReplyDelete