Disclaimer: I am not a student of the law, nor do I have much interest in studying law as it is applied in this country. Most of my knowledge of the legal system is due to reading John Grisham and watching bad courtroom movies, as well as taking a perverse delight in reading about miscarriages of justice so please forgive any fallacies I may commit here. This article is intended to be of philosophical and social interest, not legal.
As a collection of social beings, humans have adopted countless mechanisms to guide and facilitate our daily interactions. The Law of the Land, or the idea of a rigid justice system, draws its power from the consent of the governed, at least in this country, at least theoretically. As a (supposed) Democracy, the majority of the citizens decide which behaviors they deem unacceptable, and assign punishments based on (presumably) the severity of the violation. These behaviors may be as simple and straightforward as not permitting homicide (except sometimes, by some people, in some places, under some circumstances) or much more complex such as tax policy.
Now if we accept all of this, that the law exists as an expression of the desires of the majority, then it seems to me that the majority must decide if, when deciding a verdict for an accused person, it would prefer to err on the side of reasonable doubt, or err on the side of punishing an innocent. This revelation was very striking to me, that when one removes all pretenses of absolute morality, or divinely mandated behavior, we're left with a simple question: what is the social value of carrying out punishment on one guilty person compared with the value of not punishing one innocent person? As a society, would the majority prefer to always convict the accused, and cause undue suffering on many innocent people, or would it be preferable to turn many criminals back out on the streets in order to assure that no person is ever wrongfully punished. Furthermore, should the nature of the punishment be decided based on the best interests of the criminal, the victim, or the majority? This is about to get thorny, but I don't mind a little intellectual heavy lifting. So here we go, one point at a time.
1. Reasonable Doubt
It seems to me that society has tried to strike a balance between letting the guilty go free and convicting the innocent. The accused is presumed innocent, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, and the judge/jury/arbiter is instructed that no conviction be made unless there is no reasonable doubt (ambiguous criterion) as to the guilt of the accused. These biases in favor of the defendant exist in order to prevent the court from convicting an innocent, as I suppose it is presumed that if someone actually is guilty then evidence exists to be found which is sufficient to overcome these biases. Interestingly, the judgement of the court is considered indisputably correct*, unless it is disputed (appealed) and a higher court accepts the case for retrial. If this higher court overturns the verdict, then it is accepted that the first court was mistaken (even though that isn't supposed to happen), but if the verdict was upheld then the first court was correct, unless the first court was incorrect in terms of its proceedings or something, but still managed to get the "correct" verdict through luck I guess. So, we have our ruling from the appeals court, be it different or the same as the initial ruling. This new ruling is indisputably correct*, unless, you got it, it is disputed and accepted for retrial by a higher court.
*Note: I use the term indisputably correct, because once the conviction/acquittal is pronounced the accused immediately becomes either the guilty or the innocent, respectively. In other words, if we are carrying out capital punishment on persons without even pretending that their guilt is established as fact, then we have far more serious deficiencies as a society.
2. To Err on the Side of Conviction
This position may well seem favorable to victims, the families of victims, or people who have never been wrongfully accused. Some of the arguments in favor of this position include: the dissuasion of future crime based on a smaller probability of "getting away with it"; that the police, detectives, investigators, prosecutors are generally competent and generally impartial (not impartial to catching the bad guy, just impartial in selecting the most likely perpetrator from a list of suspects) and therefore not prone to putting innocents on trial; and that a criminal on the street will continue to victimize others.
3. To Err on the Side of Innocence
To be publicly pronounced guilty of a crime and then to carry out the sentence for that crime when one is innocent of the crime is one of the great tragedies of our legal system. The idea is so powerful that it has appeared in countless books and movies as a main plot device. Anyone who has suffered this fate would likely say that it is a worse outcome of justice than to have a guilty person released on the streets. This is logically correct, as by definition the perpetrator is still on the streets when an innocent is incarcerated for their crime. Convicting an innocent does no good to anybody (except for perhaps providing false comfort and peace of mind to the victim/victim's family) and destroys lives in addition to the consequences of the crime itself. Obviously, this outcome should be avoided as much as possible.
4. The Nature of the Punishment
Should convicted criminals be treated in a way that is unpleasant to them, in order to inflict on them the suffering that they have caused others? Surely this may deter some crime, but not all and probably not most. Should the criminal be treated with efforts at rehabilitation, that they may be "cured" and then forgiven, returned as productive members of society? Should the criminal be disposed of in whatever way brings the most comfort to the victim(s) of the crime? Should the criminal be removed from society simply for the benefit of society, and with no consideration given them? This last option seems most appealing, as the others are vicious, naive, and childish, respectively. Perhaps a blending of the practicality of the last option and the hopefulness of the second option would be best. To remove troublesome members of society, to fix the ones that can be fixed, and to dispose of the others in whichever way is most cost-effective and palatable for the majority. This could be anything from quick, cheap, painless executions to for-profit forced labor prisons. I would like to point out that our current system has become so convoluted that, while trying to strike the best balance between points 2 and 3, criminals are not rehabilitated, are often hardened, resentful, and unemployable when finally released (surely the JUSTICE SYSTEM cannot be responsible for high rates of recidivism!), and that even when the worst criminals are executed (remember my note about indisputably correct verdicts) this takes place decades after the crime and likely after costing society millions of dollars.
5. Finally, a Thought on Entering Pleas
I take the majority's approval of capital punishment to mean that they have deemed the justice system infallible, if not in fact then at least in terms of their acceptance of it's rulings. If a person is convicted of a crime, and the majority stands by the court's ability to differentiate guilt from innocence, then I would like to propose additional sentencing penalties for individuals who plea "Not Guilty" and are found guilty. For if they maintain their innocence, and the court maintains their guilt, and the majority sides with the court, then clearly the majority is of the opinion that the defendant is lying. If anyone takes issue with additional punishment for a convict pleading "Not Guilty" then they must, by definition, have no faith in the court.
