Random equals justice?
One of the podcasts to which I frequently listen is Hidden Brain hosted by Shankar Vedanta. He consistently challenges his listener to think about how our human brain works. The September 21 podcast is entitled “The Halo Effect: Why it’s So Difficult to Understand the Past”
One of the examples he uses in this podcast is of a man who, after having some drinks, has an accident in which three people are killed. He is charged with vehicle homicide while driving under the influence, is convicted and sentenced to prison for 15 years. Shankar asks, what if the man has left the bar a little earlier or later; what if he had been stopped and charged with driving under the influence prior to having an accident; what if he had not stopped at the bar? What if he had hit a car other than a Ford Pinto whose gas tank was vulnerable ? What happened is that he drank, was responsible for an accident and people died. If he had been stopped for a DUI prior to the accident he would have been viewed as someone who was irresponsible, paid a fine, lost his license for a time and possibly ordered to take a DUI class. Shankar correctly reminds the listener random events had a large part in the outcome of the case. Because of the outcome he is convicted as a criminal, is harshly criticized and even demonized by many. The question, of course, is what makes this man different than the person who was distracted by texting, something he or she sees off to the right or left, or like this driver was reaching for his cigarettes , is drunk and does not have an accident. One is labeled a very bad man. Another may be labeled as stupid, careless or unthinking. The randomness of the outcome calls into question our system of so-called justice. I certainly think:
• The outcome when someone is badly injured or killed is tragic.
• No one should drive if impaired in any way.
• We should all be cognizant of the fact that a vehicle is a lethal.
• All vehicles should have devices which check for potential impairment prior to being able to start and operate a vehicle.
I also think that while I love the convenience of private vehicles, we should seriously consider more mass transportation where the driver and/or the system is regularly checked for safety just as we do with train conductors, pilots, bus drivers and others who operate a public transport.
The randomness of some, if not most events, is seldom taken into account when deciding whether someone is a criminal. There is, of course, the attempt to establish intent as a measure of the severity of the crime and subsequent punishment. Even that can be a slippery slope. If one “intends” to get money for his or her drug addiction, intends to rob someone, but is not in a state of mind to intend or not intend to harm someone should they be more culpable than the person who intends to mislead someone about a piece of merchandise which subsequently injures someone?
Obviously all of us need to do our best to “play the tape through” - to consider the potential long-term effects of a decision. On the other hand, one cannot have the hindsight to predict random events which may impact the outcome of one’s decisions. Random events are just that - random. Are we routinely punishing people at great financial, emotional and spiritual expense for the outcomes determined by random events which one could not predict?
How should we, as a community, respond when one or a series of decisions results in harm to a person, persons or object. Sometimes a person is stopped for a DUI ten or more times. Eventually he or she’s is likely to have an accident and kill or badly injure others. Taking their license away may or may not deter them from future driving. Is their behavior the result of addiction to alcohol or other drugs? Are they mentally incapable of making future decisions about driving based on a shared reality or probability?
Often, in the past, I have made decisions based on probability. On a long trip, knowing I was getting tired, I have elected to keep driving until I reached a convenient location to rest or until I got through city traffic or until .... As a very young man I recall waking up seconds before I crashed into the back of a semi. The decision to keep driving was potentially lethal for myself and others. That was a stupid, irresponsible, unthinking decision.
In future blogs I will continue to ponder the concept of justice and the role of fate or randomness in how we design and implement our current judicial system.
Written September 28, 2020
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
One of the podcasts to which I frequently listen is Hidden Brain hosted by Shankar Vedanta. He consistently challenges his listener to think about how our human brain works. The September 21 podcast is entitled “The Halo Effect: Why it’s So Difficult to Understand the Past”
One of the examples he uses in this podcast is of a man who, after having some drinks, has an accident in which three people are killed. He is charged with vehicle homicide while driving under the influence, is convicted and sentenced to prison for 15 years. Shankar asks, what if the man has left the bar a little earlier or later; what if he had been stopped and charged with driving under the influence prior to having an accident; what if he had not stopped at the bar? What if he had hit a car other than a Ford Pinto whose gas tank was vulnerable ? What happened is that he drank, was responsible for an accident and people died. If he had been stopped for a DUI prior to the accident he would have been viewed as someone who was irresponsible, paid a fine, lost his license for a time and possibly ordered to take a DUI class. Shankar correctly reminds the listener random events had a large part in the outcome of the case. Because of the outcome he is convicted as a criminal, is harshly criticized and even demonized by many. The question, of course, is what makes this man different than the person who was distracted by texting, something he or she sees off to the right or left, or like this driver was reaching for his cigarettes , is drunk and does not have an accident. One is labeled a very bad man. Another may be labeled as stupid, careless or unthinking. The randomness of the outcome calls into question our system of so-called justice. I certainly think:
• The outcome when someone is badly injured or killed is tragic.
• No one should drive if impaired in any way.
• We should all be cognizant of the fact that a vehicle is a lethal.
• All vehicles should have devices which check for potential impairment prior to being able to start and operate a vehicle.
I also think that while I love the convenience of private vehicles, we should seriously consider more mass transportation where the driver and/or the system is regularly checked for safety just as we do with train conductors, pilots, bus drivers and others who operate a public transport.
The randomness of some, if not most events, is seldom taken into account when deciding whether someone is a criminal. There is, of course, the attempt to establish intent as a measure of the severity of the crime and subsequent punishment. Even that can be a slippery slope. If one “intends” to get money for his or her drug addiction, intends to rob someone, but is not in a state of mind to intend or not intend to harm someone should they be more culpable than the person who intends to mislead someone about a piece of merchandise which subsequently injures someone?
Obviously all of us need to do our best to “play the tape through” - to consider the potential long-term effects of a decision. On the other hand, one cannot have the hindsight to predict random events which may impact the outcome of one’s decisions. Random events are just that - random. Are we routinely punishing people at great financial, emotional and spiritual expense for the outcomes determined by random events which one could not predict?
How should we, as a community, respond when one or a series of decisions results in harm to a person, persons or object. Sometimes a person is stopped for a DUI ten or more times. Eventually he or she’s is likely to have an accident and kill or badly injure others. Taking their license away may or may not deter them from future driving. Is their behavior the result of addiction to alcohol or other drugs? Are they mentally incapable of making future decisions about driving based on a shared reality or probability?
Often, in the past, I have made decisions based on probability. On a long trip, knowing I was getting tired, I have elected to keep driving until I reached a convenient location to rest or until I got through city traffic or until .... As a very young man I recall waking up seconds before I crashed into the back of a semi. The decision to keep driving was potentially lethal for myself and others. That was a stupid, irresponsible, unthinking decision.
In future blogs I will continue to ponder the concept of justice and the role of fate or randomness in how we design and implement our current judicial system.
Written September 28, 2020
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
RSS Feed