This is my penultimate blog and I realise I haven't talked about justice. I have had occasion to go to (civil) court a few times in my life and while you wait for your turn you listen to other people's cases. The most interesting part of the proceeding is the realization that most of the time both sides have equally plausible stories. I remember wondering how judges could ever decide cases when both sides have seemingly cast iron cases. When my children were younger if they had done something wrong and they started to blame it on each other I would tell them I'm not interested in the stories as it was impossible for me to tell whose version was the "real" one (if there is such a thing). I'm not a fan of the criminal justice system, but I can see why sometimes society needs to protect itself against individuals with violent behaviour. On civil cases however I think we need to rethink our approach. Instead of having a judge we could have a mediator. The parties involved in the dispute would be required to negotiate until they had reached a common agreement. In the absence of an agreement both parties could be fined (according to their means) or the object of the dispute could be sequestered. The best outcome is always a negotiated rather then an imposed outcome. Justice is based on the idea that there is a "fair" or "real" version of a human interaction. We need to move away for this absolutist (quasi religious) view of the world and accept the relativity of all our point of view. There are 15 million civil lawsuits every year in the United States: that's 15 million occasions to engage with someone and try to come to an agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment