Procedural v. Consequential Justice

[ku]

Should government focus more on correct procedure or correct consequences?

 

Consequential justice focuses only the result. For example, if someone is suspected to be a suicide bomber then it is better to kill him to potentially save more lives. The killing is bad and taking away individual freedom may be bad but the damage is much worse if this person were in fact a suicide bomber so it's okay to kill him. You can calculate it as follows (probability bomber blows up)*(aggregate social unhappiness from many people killed by bomber) > (probability bomber doesn't blow up)*(aggregate social unhappiness from one person killed), and therefore it is okay to kill the suspected bomber. Another example is that of one hundred men gang-raping a woman. Assuming that each man who participates in the act gains identical satisfaction and also assuming that satisfaction is additive, and that dissatisfaction is comparable with satisfaction, then if (dissatisfaction of raped woman) < (satisfaction of a man from raping)*100, then using the same similar reasoning it is okay for the woman to be raped for the good of society.

 

Procedural justice, however, considers the procedure. It may be argued that expected social welfare is better off if a suspected terrorist is killed immediately but that would violate an individual's freedom to life and safety. Likewise, is may be good for social welfare that a woman is raped to satisfy the strong demands of the sex-crazed men, but that would violate the woman's individual right to freedom of choice, freedom to safety, and so forth.

 

So which should the government emphasize? Or should it be a bit of both? If it is both, under what circumstances should one form of justice be emphasized over another?

[beautyundone]

Another example is that of one hundred men gang-raping a woman. Assuming that each man who participates in the act gains identical satisfaction and also assuming that satisfaction is additive, and that dissatisfaction is comparable with satisfaction, then if (dissatisfaction of raped woman) < (satisfaction of a man from raping)*100, then using the same similar reasoning it is okay for the woman to be raped for the good of society.

 

that right there makes me want to kill someone.

that's just plain awful.

[Douglas]

But what if dissatisfaction = the sum of satisfaction + 1

 

Roe Vs Wade may fall may be an example.

 

What type of justice is.............

Banning smoking in public buildings ?

Banning smoking in private establishments ?

[MetaFrizzics]

To address the original post (?):

 

How can you have reliable consequential justice without scientific procedural justice?

 

(e.g., how do you avoid convicting the innocent? )

 

How do you set up a reliable 'feedback' system to allow outcomes to moderate procedures for a more accurate result?

 

(e.g., who polices the police? )

 

What basis do you use to build a 'justice' system? In order for the word 'justice' to have real lexical content, the system has to be successful. If you only catch and punish 10% of serial killers for instance, or only charge economically or mentally disadvantaged criminals with crimes, there is no 'justice' in the philosophical sense that most people take for granted.

[Thomas Kirby]

You would think that if a man raped a woman, being raped once himself would be an approximately equivalent consequence. I get the impression that revenge isn't satisfied even if that man is raped in prison a thousand times. I don't think that anyone who is vengeful ever can be pleased unless they want to be. For one's own self, that is a good reason not to be vengeful. Going through life without the ability to be pleased sucks.

 

Imagine what would happen to our justice system if every time someone committed an offense, the prosecutors had to prove that that individual act caused harm and how much.

[MetaFrizzics]

You would think that if a man raped a woman, being raped once himself would be an approximately equivalent consequence.

But the problem with this treatment is that the original criminal is taught to (can choose to) view the crime as a business transaction, and may well calculate that the 'cost of doing business' is more than compensated by the 'gains'. In fact, not only is there no guarantee of equality in the transaction, the criminal may value both experiences and consider it a 'win-win' circumstance. This is not an ethical reasoning process, and so there is no reform, repentance, or hope of deterance.

Imagine what would happen to our justice system if every time someone committed an offense, the prosecutors had to prove that that individual act caused harm and how much.

This does not seem that unreasonable. It might be part of a process for weeding out nonsensical and unimportant cases that are not cost-effective to pursue. And indeed this is probably what happens in the D.A.'s office.