Nuances in Justice and Law

Over two years, and so much has happened. Where to start after that time, eh? Well, like with most places, with a review of what has come before.

I was observing how strongly I was examining the concepts of justice and compassion in my earlier posts, and considering where I was coming from that makes perfect sense. One semester away from a Master's degree in Public Policy has given me a whole new realm of mess to throw into the mix. Namely, the formulation of the objective form of justice: laws.

So, what is a law? Well, in it's purest form it's a directive that the legislative branch puts on the executive branch. At the most basic level that's all it is, it starts as a bill drafted by the house, approved, run through the senate, approved, then confirmed by the president and signed 'into law' (made active and official). All it really is, is just the legislative branch telling the executive branch what to do though.

What does 'the law' and 'justice' have to do with each other then? Well, if, as I've been discussing before, justice is a form of either punitive or compensatory action to either retain homeostasis of event-affected individuals, or to guide their forward path (I'm still grappling with the probabilistic-justice analogy), then a law is an individual direction to the executive branch on how to do this in general circumstances.

"But wait, Jason," you might be thinking, "what about the judicial branch?" Fair question. The judicial branch's purpose is as interpreters and arbitrators on the law. Now, if we go by a strict interpretation on what I'm saying the law is then the only cases that could be brought are against the executive branch for not doing what it's supposed to. This does happen, where individuals sue the state. The supreme court cases for Prop 8 and DOMA are examples of this. However, we also have the state suing individuals, and individuals suing each other (not getting into the citizenship status of organizations, that's a whole other ball of wax).

What can we infer from this? Well, if the core purpose of law is for the legislature to direct the executive to action (or to direct them away from certain actions), and the executive is remiss in doing so then suit can be brought. I infer from this that suit can be brought when the law specifies certain behaviors need to be performed (or not performed), and they are not done so. Now, since individuals can be sued, that means the law can have behavioral expectations of individuals. Through this, that means that the legislative can direct the behavior of individuals. Therefore the definition of the law must be expanded to include, at a minimum, directives towards individuals.

Let's look at this though, we now have two forms of directive. One where the legislature is directing the executive, and one where the legislature is directing individuals. Are there qualitative differences between these directives? As the judicial branch sees it (or rather how they're *supposed* to see it), no. In implementation however, I would argue yes. Consider how law enforcement is carried out (no not just criminal justice, but enforcement in its generic sense). For executive directives, the executive branch is somewhat self-policing, and also watchdogged by the legislature and citizenry. For individuals, it's enforced by the executive, and how it's enforced is watchdogged by the legislature and the citizenry. I would argue that this creates a much different experience of law for the executive than for individuals.

Ok, let's get back to justice for a moment here. So, it seems like law is about direction, and justice is about punishment or compensation. These two don't inherently overlap, but like a Venn diagram, they can overlap. I will call that overlap justice-based laws. Or, more specifically, laws that direct executive or individual behavior in circumstances where an event has removed an individual from homeostasis, and that direction is focused on either punishing the affector, or compensating the affectee, to return the affectee to homeostasis or set them on a new trajectory. Ok, that was a mouthful.

Let's break that down a little then, what does a justice-based law need to function? Well, first, it needs a circumstance that it identifies as having an individual removed from homeostasis. Theft is a good example. A person has something, like a TV or a car, and they expect to continue having and using it. Their expectation is legitimized through ownership (another subject for another day). An outside force (another individual in this case) removes that object from the person so they are no longer able to use it. There are nuances here in the realm of consent, but this example assumes that the outside force does not have the person's consent to do what they did. So, quick and more plain-English recap: a justice-based law needs to define the circumstances in which its applicable.

Ok, next up, a justice-based law needs to define the affectee and the affector. The afectee is always going to be the individual(s) whose homeostasis was breached, and the affector is always going to be the individual(s) whose actions breached that homeostasis (consider that they can be one in the same, example: suicide laws). That's easy in this case, the person is the affectee and the outside force is the affector.

Now, here comes the tricky part; a justice-based law needs to identify what remedy is applied to the circumstance. What the remedy is depends on what justice framework is used. This would be the 'return to homeostasis' framework, the 'moving forward' framework, or the (and still not clearly understood by Jason) 'probabilistic' framework. I'll focus on the first two because I can actually understand and explain them.

It doesn't stop there though, let's look at the punitive and the compensatory frameworks too. In the most basic sense, punitive action takes from the affector, and the compensatory action gives to the affectee. This can, technically, be the same action (take from the affector and give to the affectee), but it's important to break them up separately, as some things can't be trades like this, as not all cases are theft (-: Ok so where does that leave us? Well, we have a rubric of three 'objectives' (return to homeostasis, moving forward, and probabilistic) and two 'responses' (punitive and compensatory).

So, let's return to our example. We have an affector who's stolen, let's say a car, from the affectee. Our justice-based law has identified stealing a car as a breach of homeostasis, and identified both the affector and affectee. To flush out our law it also needs to identify how to respond to the homeostasis breach, and that's where the rubric comes in. We have six categories to identify a response with (though some individual repsonses may fit more than one category). The immediate idea that comes to mind is taking the stolen car from the affector and returning it to the affectee. This is a 'return to' objective (the end result brings everything back to where it was before), and both punitive (something is taken from the affector) and compensatory (something is given to the affectee). "Ok Jason, that's great, but don't thieves usually get prison time too?" Yes they do! Let's examine that, however. That's taking something from the affector (liberty), so it's a punitive action, but it doesn't try to restore homeostasis to the affectee, so that makes it either 'moving forward' or 'probabilistic' goal. Now, again I'm still pretty brainwarped on what probabilistic looks like, so let's go with 'moving forward' for now (yes I am limiting my rubric to a 2x2 because of my lack of understanding, I'm working on it!). So, with a pretty standard case, person's car gets stolen, thief goes to jail and car gets returned to its owner, it fits within the justice-based law framework here. I would argue that in a general sense this framework can work on many different types of laws, and not just criminal laws.

However let's take a step back, because what we're really talking about here is a framework for understanding the implementation of justice. So, we have this system that identifies an affector and affectee, identifies a breach of homeostasis, and identifies a response to the situation. In a real-world situation that response is carried out by the executive branch. The police return the car to the owner and lock up the thief. Aha! Ok, so let's look back at the old notion of the law, and its directive powers. Is the law really directing individuals here, or is it directing the executive branch to respond to individuals actions/circumstances? I would actually argue the latter. Consider what happens if the police aren't there (or far too frequently when they are, another issue for another time), the response actions are not conducted.

"Alright Jason, what about civil cases?" Ok, fair point, but consider that the judicial ruling is still actionable only be the executive branch. The court decision is telling the looser 'unless you do this, the executive branch will whup your ass', which is less of a directive to the individual than it is to the executive branch to act on the individual if they don't comply with the ruling of the court.

Taking another step back, this implies that justice, in its real-world form, is about how an outside force decides to come in and 'fix' a situation it finds issue with. Yes, this is a little cynical, but still accurate. Consider that justice, in this sense, has nothing to do with morality. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' behavior on individuals here, only an internal behavior model for an outside entity that responds to homeostatic breaches.

What is justice then? At this point it's fair to say that justice is so far divorced from fairness, morality, community and society, that mainstream ideas of justice are generally rather bogus.

Up next time: Justice and burecracy! Ooh what fun! (-:

- Jason

Seas of Troubles

…

I'm confused.

How can such immorality lead to so much comfort?

Shakespeare really said it well in 'to be or not to be...' This land is indeed the land of outrageous fortune, and I do indeed exist in the land of a sea of troubles.

Yet shall I lay down with the immorality that exists to sustain that fortune, or is that the inherent nature of fortune?

Mayhap I would believe the latter to be the case, as how can one amass wealth if but through the exploitation of others? In the modern world, wealth is acquired at the expense of someone else.

So what of my life? I am fortunate enough to be able to contemplate these things... Yet I still struggle, and my life is the result of my force of self in sustaining it, nothing further. Everything that's resulted from it is exampled within my life, by that I have taken arms against my sea of troubles, for how is it possible to live in comfort and wealth without exploitation?

My dignity intact, yet indeed I do still suffer. It is less of a suffering than if I were to enjoy the luxurious life. Can I bear to live in a world where I am exploited, or I am the exploiter?

I don't think I could bear to live as an exploiter, so that really only gives me one path that I will follow, but I do have the choice, and I guess that choice is where character comes in.

So my character is indeed to stand against that sea of troubles, against injustice, against harm, against cruelty, against negligence. I keep fighting it, even as I live within it.

- Jason

Ranting Madness to Retain Sanity

So, I'm here, in West Palm Beach, waiting for pickup from my ex. What a horrible situation to be in... I feel like a slave. In a lot of ways I am, the state legitimized my indeturement to my ex, so I am a slave, or at least an indentured servant.

Oh not in any traditional way, the only actual exchange in this formal arrangement is money, but still, how does one get money? Through job. Through work. Ergo, indentured servitude/slavery.

Forget what society is doing, why did she do this? It still befuddles me, was she truly so weak of a person that she only cares for easement in her life? This was the most convenient way to exploit me, to be sure. She has the resources of three people at her disposal. One by choice, one by action, and one (me) by coercion and deception.

That's a mark that will bear on her soul for all time, and that makes me feel relieved, that justice will, somehow, be served. My astute sense of social justice screams outrage in this situation. My whole being isn't justice, and I cannot taint myself in the name of justice to force a balance. It's a horrible situation, but here I am...

So, what do I do going forward? Hamlet said it best... 'To be or not to be. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles.' I have indeed found my sea of troubles.

Yet is my situation indicative of problems beyond me? My problems aren't just me, but they are shared with everyone I come in contact with. Not only that, but as a part of the social mechanism, it can't, by its very nature, be just me. So, my problem is the world's problem. But more than that, everyone else s problem is mine. This I have no objection to, that is the way of social systems. That is the price of unity (-:

I accept responsibility for my brothers and sisters, for my animal and plant friends, for the rocks, the clouds, the ocean, for the moon, and the stars, and all other things in the universe.

I guess that's why this happens, my awareness of these things is what builds them to the climactic penultimate: taking arms against a sea of troubles. Troubles from all angles, within and without. My own psyche is eating me away, slowly. I just hope that I can contribute to the world in some meaningful way before it breaks down completely.

- Jason

Holding Compassion and Justice Together?

I find myself in a strange place in regards to my divorce, holding both compassion and justice together, side by side. They bicker with each other occasionally, as they often encourage contrasting courses of action. It's a weird sense though. I feel like I'm in some kind of irreconcilable conflict with myself.

In trying to make sense of it I keep going back to the Kabbalistic shattered vessel, in that my divorce shattered my reality, and my self-identity, into disparate parts, justice, compassion, and others (though justice and compassion have the strongest voices). I wonder if my desire to re-boot my life through graduate school isn't really just my attempt to re-build those disparate parts into something new, and hopefully better.

It's funny, that seems selfish and frivolous in some ways, as if I'm doing this just for myself. And that wouldn't be an unfair assessment either, yet one of my goals from graduate school is to build my knowledge and skills to advocate for my community, which is laudable, in a more typical moralistic context.

Again, another contrast to hold. If one's goals are sub-consciously directed by self-interest, but consciously directed by benefiting others, what's the root here? Or is it within this balance, of self-interest and helping others, that harmony is found? Perhaps to be truly capable this contrast must be hold together?

Then, what of, in a larger sense, is my moral nature? My morals are built on the conscious idea that their precepts and dictates are of the benefit of others, not me, yet I selfishly hold strict to them. Many would see this is as an unhealthy balance, that I should have both my conscious and sub-conscious mind in harmony, yet the Kabbalistic tree of life speaks differently.

The tree of life is a balance of opposite forces, of passivity and activity, of femininity and masculinity, of harmony and chaos. Why cannot I find my path through these balancing extremes? Isn't that inherent in the Kabbalistic natural world?

Or maybe I'm just finding religious precepts to cling to in order to justify myself.

Food for thought...

- Jason

Justice: Linking Old with New

In looking over my older posts I see I've taken a divergence since incorporating Sacred Therapy into the mix. I've defaulted to the traditional notion of justice. This is most prominent in my previous post (7/31/11), so I've decided to try and address this issue somewhat.

Getting back to my earliest posts, justice can be punitive or compensation. these are it's primary modes of expression, either affecting the affector (punitive) or the affected (compensatory). Justice includes judgement, discernment and balance. Justice is an equalizing force, creating equivalence. Yet what of the connection between justice and determinism? Doesn't determinism have all of the same characteristics of justice in this case? Determinisim, as best described (again here) by Newton's third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Determinism requires discernment - what was the actor and the acted on - and both punitive and compensatory expression - what is the affect of this action on the actor (punitive) and the acted on (compensatory). The only difference I can see is that justice strives to return acted on objects to a non-acted space, Newtonian physics is about acting as change.

Strangely enough, traditional justice is much more like pre-Newtonian physics, where the assumption was that all objects default to a state of rest unless acted on by outside force.

Taking this a step further, if justice were to truly parallel Newtonian physics, then justice's objective would be to determine the new path after the affect, not to return the affector/affected to a stationary position.

Let's take this a step further (or several) though. Let's look at quantum physics. Now we have multiple probabilistic outcomes based on the observer. Let's, for the same of argument, think of justice as the observer here. Justice is still here to determine the effect of affector and affectee interaction, but instead the interaction is predicated on how justice manifests the quantum probabilities. Justice plays an active role in determining the outcome.

What happens when justice is based on probability instead of determinism?

Now, here's the major mind-warp. What happens when God, as justice (probability-based) runs up against the compassionate human?

I think my metaphor brain just melted...

- Jason

Viewing the Good With the Bad: A Quasi-Religious Perspective

Author's Notice: I apologize in advance for any religious or scientific fundamentalists I will probably alienate with this post. I'm going to be using a rather liberal metaphorical interpretation of God in this post.

So... I finished reading Sacred Therapy, and the part that's stuck with me the most is in asking God for forgiveness to sinners. Effectively advocating for those that have done wrong. This is a phenomenally contradictory concept, especially for my social justice oriented self. I'm a proponent of balance and justice, yet I also hold that compassion is a vital component to these. Compassion seems to be out-of-balance from these concepts. Yet from another perspective it's compassion that balances out justice.

Using biblical reference, there's many cases where God has unleashed his holy retribution by wiping out, maiming, messing with, or otherwise making human life miserable. There's other situations where prophetic humans have stayed God's wrath through compassionate advocacy. It begs the question how the bible would end if there was no compassion in God... Not well I imagine.

Yet the source of compassion isn't really seen as in God, but in human power. As we stand between justice and those deserving reciprocity, is that not an act of faith on some level? Another human being has shown their evil, harm and destructive capacity on the world and we, in our complete faith in them, stand between them and God to advocate for compassion.

Now, the bible consists of stories where this compassion is returned by reformation and atonement on the part of those we show compassion to. The real world isn't quite as forgiving. However, I would argue that these stories aren't about the world around us, but about the world within us. Let's spend some time in the metaphorical world of our inner landscape, where all beings are aspects of ourselves. God, in this case, is the judgement and justice, our sense of fairness. The 'harmful' person, the victim of our judgement, is ultimately ourself in vulnerability and weakness, for being hurt in the way we were.Our judgement is condemning ourself for being weak and allowing such harm to be inflicted.

This is where our compassion steps in. By shielding ourself in our vulnerability from our judgement we give ourself the space to heal, to reform, and to atone (to become at one).

I have found this personally helpful with my divorce. I have deep and painful wounds from my ex wife. Some of which she continues to inflict. I am not strong enough to protect myself from receiving these wounds, and I do judge myself for not doing so. In a surprisingly profound symbolic act, I began 'protecting' my ex from God, by asking for God's forgiveness and compassion for my ex. In doing so, I embodied all of the aspects of compassion I have within myself, and was able to converse with my judgement. This dialog, though unresolved, has helped me to meld both my compassion and my judgement into a unified vision of my ex.

It's also helped alleviate many of the panic attacks I was suffering in regards to my ex.

Not that I don't still think of my ex, but if we go back to the metaphor, then it's really my compassion sheltering and caring for my vulnerable self while moderating my judgement. It's... not what I would expect from a Judaic perspective, but then again Kabbalah isn't your average Judaism (-:

So, I find myself a little more whole thanks to a liberal metaphorical interpretation of the bible.

Funny how things go sometimes, eh?

- Jason

Perfection and Imperfection

I can see that Estelle Frankel's Sacred Therapy is going to be a staplehold of this blog for awhile. If nothing else it has breathed new life into it.

Perfection: Though I have always understood that my perfection lies in my imperfection, and my continual desire for improvement, I have always held that things outside of me are perfect. The universe is perfect. All things are perfect. The system I live within is perfect.  Yet with the absurdity of which my perfect universe has been stretched, it is hard to hold on to that perfect universe image. I cannot hold out for a lost hope that the universe will balance itself in my stead. I don't do that with friends or family, I won't do that with the universe.

So then, what is left to me? I could take balance in my own hands, become a crusader for balance and correct the imbalances in the universe. This would be no different than internalizing perfection, and then projecting it outward (instead of the opposite, which I have been doing). Or, I can find some peace that the universe is as broken as I am, and it, and all things in it, are laying on the floor, shattered by being dropped, or falling, from it's once mighty place.

Justice is balance, justice is equilibrium, justice is a perfect universe. If that is so, what is an imperfect universe? Does it lack justice, or is justice simply broken, like everything else?

In the perfect universe, Newton's three laws of motion apply. Namely the third: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The universe balances perfectly. Yet as an irony, nothing in the universe would form if it was perfect. Stars and planets formed because of inconsistent distributions of matter from the big bang. Imperfection gave birth to stars, planets, and life. Can the universe really be so perfect?

I guess that's part of exploring it, finding the cracks.

- Jason