A philosophical inquiry into criminality, vindication, and morality
We as humans are capable of so much good; we are inventors, liberators, and teachers, driven by the desire to selflessly improve life around us. Yet, we have just as much potential to be dictators, thieves, and narcissists. Just as easily as we create worlds, we can be their destroyers.
Many live under the assumption that humanity is naturally good, or at the very least that it is capable of some kind of motive beyond self-fulfillment. While far removed from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea of natural goodness corrupted by social systems and the commercial state, the modern interpretation of the natural goodness equation has a lot to do with the human variable. As people who, presumably, try to minimize our harm and avoid egregious displays of selfishness, we justly believe that those around us are operating by the same processes. Take the example of “paying it forward,” where person A pays for the meal of person B right behind them in a line. Person A, while aware that the only true constraints on person B’s unwillingness to pay it forward would be their own morality and desire to avoid social ostracization. In other words, the need to pay it forward is guided not by a threat of physical violence if person B is unwilling, nor by some kind of financial penalty, but more so by the inherent need to “do the right thing.” What happens when person B does not pay it forward? Perhaps they get labeled a freeloader of a system based on the charitable good nature of person A, perhaps they get verbal complaints or threats uttered towards them, or perhaps nothing happens. Regardless, the general idea is that person B is in the wrong. Now suppose person B had no money to pay it forward, the introduction of a mitigating factor into the natural goodness equation. I doubt many people would be upset with person B (minus maybe person C, who was going to order hundreds of dollars worth of food). The reality is that as an emotional group of creatures, we love to attach ourselves to those mitigating factors and convince ourselves that goodness continues to exist, and it was simply paused in the moment. We convince ourselves that given the perfect circumstances, this would not have happened, and person C would be happily munching on some lobster.
I agree, with a caveat. I think that perfect circumstances while giving rise to ideal outcomes, are a red herring label for what they truly are: barriers to making morally wrong choices. Personally, I am more so on the side of Thomas Hobbes, who proclaimed that humans naturally have tendencies to be selfish, vain, and the ability to wage war against anyone and everyone (more so metaphorically, but often literally). If we were to strip society of all its institutions and etiquette, it seems unlikely that humans would want to do anything besides be selfish. Without laws and without systems in place to limit morally reprehensible behaviour, can it be said with absolute confidence that people would remain the same morally-conscious individuals? Finally, weeding through the preamble, we have arrived at the main point of this discussion: the idea of good versus evil as it relates to the criminal justice system.
No one can truly be said to have picked a life of a crime, just as no one can truly be said to have picked a life of law; the choices we made or did not, the thoughts and feelings and experiences we carry on our shoulders, and the strength of our moral compass dictate our paths. Necessity is a breeding ground for crime, and pushes even the most morally righteous onto the path of least resistance. Take the common example of stealing a loaf of bread to ensure your family survives another week. If your perspective on morality is absolute, you would say that no matter the circumstances, that action is unforgivable and warrants an action to correct it and provide restitution. But few hold that perspective, because we realize how crucial mitigating factors are in determining blameworthiness, and our justice system reflects that majority belief. There will of course be consequences, because our justice system does not exist in a vacuum of blameworthiness being the sole guiding principle, but those consequences are altered to fit the situation. A morally wrong action was taken, but just as the example of the man unable to pay it forward due to a lack of funds, we convince ourselves that goodness still exists but for a condition. That is where you see so much of the backlash against the western criminal justice system, whereby restitution is an afterthought. We may believe there is still goodness, but the justice system closes the cell and avoids any attempt at creating perfect circumstances.
Do we all deserve second chances? I think the knee-jerk answer to that question would be “of course.” However, we all go through different life experiences that dictate who deserves to be forgiven, and who we are fine with kicking to the curb without so much as an afterthought. Some crimes, by virtue of the way we perceive ourselves as morally righteous people, do not lead to second chances nearly as much. For example, take the crime of sexual assault against a minor and think about whether you truly believe someone engaging in that will be given society’s forgiveness; the criminal justice system certainly opts not to think so, as it has extensive long-standing consequences for such crimes. As previously stated, morality is seldom absolute and where we believe the acts of one convict are mendable, the acts of another are set in stone. I use this example because it is reprehensible act where you would struggle to even come up with mitigating factors for the crime. What about the act of murder? Taking another life has massive implications, not only for the victim and their family, but for the convicted and society as well. That being said, there are many who are under the belief that murder is a reformable crime. I think, at its core, what drives that belief is not so much the general belief in the power of rehabilitation, otherwise all crimes would be treated equally in terms of social ostracization, but rather the Hobbesian proclamation of humanity’s evil tendencies. If we accept that humans are naturally evil, we would be fine with rehabilitation as a way of managing that evil. Otherwise, if we accept that humans are naturally good, what is the benefit of rehabilitation in the first place? If you have committed a crime and you are naturally good, then the solution would be to remove the factor that pushed you to commit the crime rather than introspectively examine your core values and rearrange your mindset.
In the end, while many will be quick to denounce the ideas of Hobbes as uncharacteristic of society given how much good humanity has done and will continue to do, I believe a lot of the disagreement comes from an inherent desire to be good due to social systems, and convince ourselves that others want the same. How can we be naturally evil if I and the people around me are not prototypically evil? Evil rears its ugly head in many ways, and the criminal justice system is one such way. It can be rehabilitated, but only insofar as we believe it can be.
