The Justice Model

“We live in a pluralist society where different cultures exist and have different moral and religious convictions or views so justice needs to be neutral with respect to these moral and religious views” from Michael Sandel, Professor of Government Theory at Harvard University Law School. To expand on the above a bit there are also differing political views so essentially any form of universal justice would need to be neutral, independent and isolated from these influences. Time is the ideal arbiter. It has no biases and has its own absolute binary logic that defines justice.

Reasoning and logic.

This model has the following structure. Justice is through a reasonable peer of your choice. It seems very counterintuitive, but the reasoning and logic is sound the fundamental difference is that your peer is there to judge you and your claim of an injustice not the other person or party, if he feels you are being unreasonable he has the right to his own peer, but again his peer is there to judge him and his morality not the opposing party. The reasoning and logic are as follows. What is the worst crime that you can commit? This is on the face of it a subjective question that can have various answers. However any answer that you can give has a crime that is worst than what one posits. That crime is to accuse a someone or person of committing that crime when in fact they are innocent of that crime. This architecture of this model will cause an immoral person to get his peer to commit this crime, to accuse another person of a crime they are innocent of, the worst crime you can commit, so the reasoning is that if you cause your peer to commit this crime you have no respect for your peer or your culture. This is the result of lying to your peer, you will cause him to unjustly accuse someone of a crime they didn’t commit. Your peer is there to judge you not the other person. It metaphorically takes that loaded gun or weapon that a criminal uses to appropriate your will and puts it against the criminals head. If he lies to you in any way shape or form that has any material bearing on the case at hand he will immediately find him guilty of disrespecting his peer as well as his culture, and his peer will then find him guilty of purgery and rule against his client as well as impose any seance that he deems appropriate. The fundamental reasoning is that if you choose your peer you have no claim to bias or injustice you can introduce all your cultural biases at this stage. He has to be reasonable in that he has to understand that there are other cultures that exist with values that may well not align with yours and when you are in their space these need to be respected along with the law of the land as it were. The one maxim that is also a axiom is the value theory that posits that you cannot appropriate value, including time, of any other individual without their consent and if you do and they ask you to stop and you don’t you are guilty of a crime. With regards to time the test is can you continue with what you were doing without suffering a loss or being exposed to what your culture would deem immoral behavior, immoral behavior or customs must be tolerated but they need to be practiced within your own cultural or private space. A culture with a custom that others find offensive or inappropriate must only be practiced within the culture or space that accepts that custom. Respect for others right not to be exposed to customs they find offensive and tolerance of others to practice their customs no matter how offensive they deem them to be. To place a undue obligation on anyone without their consent is a immoral act.

So in practice works something like this.

If you feel that you have no other option available to you, and if you are unsure of the process or local law, you can approach what you would consider a reasonable peer who you consider cognoscente of the local laws and/or customs to start the process. Everything has a app these days so a app can be developed. Once you have approached the peer the process is triggered for you, there are going to be consequences for you either way, you could possibly be a obsessive litigant, but somehow I don’t think so, this protocol possibly resolves that issue, but just in case if your peer invoices you, or he approaches the defendant, a case is now on your record, the date and time are noted, easy with a app. Your peer now also has access to your historical record and any precedent that may apply to you. (This makes sense later on) So your peer, or judge, once he is in agreement with you that a injustice has occurred, through his perceived knowledge of the local laws/customs, has to approach the defendant. He must inform him of the charge, as well as to get his side of the story, he has no choice. It is one time that a person does not have free will, when you are accused of a injustice, apart from as and when he or his culture dictates.

(Just FYI, any reasonable injustice generally involves affecting your time or your time going forward negatively. Freedom of speech is a universal right, including what some may consider hate speech. You know the saying sticks and stones…. But speech that encourages, or involves incitement to commit crime, that is to take or damage what is not yours and/or hurt someone without their consent, is a crime).

If he has a valid reason then that is the case, it is still recorded on everyone record and he is compensated for his time. If not, he is informed of the negative impact and consequences of his actions, and that if he doesn’t cease and desist, he will be subjected to a sanction. That sanction will be as the local laws, or his (the defendants) culture dictates for that injustice. He will additionally also be liable for any costs and inconvenience incurred due to his actions, in other words, with costs.

If he reoffends, second strike, the sanction is imposed.

He is then informed that if he transgresses again, third strike, he will be subjected to a sanction of a order of magnitude greater 10x. And a additional sanction that the victim, sees fit as long as it is considered reasonable by the victims culture.

If at any stage, if he feels that he is being unfairly treated he can claim a injustice is being committed against him and he can get what he considers a reasonable peer of his choice.

His peer now has to judge and sentence him, the peer has to “judge” his clients claim of a injustice. He must be careful, the possibility exists that his culture, or peer, has a default punishment that is worse than the local laws dictate. His peer can impose that on him if he feels strongly about it. His peer is in effect his “king” with regard to the particulars of this case. But he must first serve, or comply, with the sentence of the presiding officer, unless the presiding officer waives that requirement.

His peer must firstly see, or determine, if he is indeed guilty, according to the local laws, and, secondly to see if the protocol for recourse was followed. That would include that the sanctions are valid and reasonably considered. In other words, to ensure the spirit, or intent, of the process is being adhered to.

If his peer feels that the protocol is not being followed and is indeed unjust, due to a injustice resulting from a biased, or unreasonable, presiding officer, he needs to point it out, and get the presiding officer to either reconsider that issue, for a more reasoned course of action. If he feels for some reason the presiding officer is being totally unreasonable, he can claim that the presiding officer is not competent and cannot be considered reasonable.

As this protocol for recourse is one of many the including the traditional one, a final arbiter is selected from the existing justice system. A protocol for sanctioning and rehabilitating a unreasonable peer can be implemented. But all this goes on their record.

Possibly a final arbiter that is neutral is identified for this eventuality when the defended appoints his peer. This final arbiter can have the same culture as both parties if they want to retain any cultural biases, or could be from a culture that is not closely associated, or neutral, to both parties if cultural biases do not need to be retained or considered.

That’s the gist of it. It’s fair and just as far as I can tell.

It’s recourse through a peer of your choice. But your peer is there to assess you, and your ability to reason not the other party/ies. You cannot change him. He is your king with regards to this issue.

There is obviously a protocol for recording this process on your record. It is for future peers to see if a trend is being followed. This is to identify habitual offenders and create laws unique for them. Precedent, as it should be, not as it currently is. That stays with you for the rest of your life. Take responsibility and be accountable for your actions. The same is recorded on record of every party involved, to prevent any future corruption of the process or historical record. Even the person who claimed a injustice, whether real or not. As well as the presiding officer/s.

This next bit probably needs some rehashing.

This proposal for a justice model uses the simple logic that ownership of your time is time is absolute. It is a asset you are born with, you spend it your whole life, you can trade it, and convert it to other forms of value, and you die with none. It defines time as the genesis of value, you must always have absolute ownership of your time, in other words the right to choose how you spend or invest your time, however you take full responsibility and are fully accountable for how you sped it as well as the consequences of those actions. It further proposes as a second postulate that Justice is defined as the protection and preservation of that value. This definition of justice appears to be in common, or consistent, with what we generally perceive justice to currently be within the current architecture, it’s what the current architecture, constitutional democracy, appears to be “subconsciously” striving for. Don’t steal, or take what is not yours, don’t hurt anyone and don’t make them waist their time, when these crimes are committed with forethought, intent and malice recourse can be very onerous on the perpetrator. Where it is inconsistent it highlights current laws that are patently unjust, generally placing a higher value on one persons time over another, the origins of crimes against humanity. A example would be affirmative action (AA) or in our case as South Africans, Black Economic Empowerment policy (BEE). Both these policies AA and BEE and their various iterations violate Rawls principal of a “veil of ignorance” as well as Kants universalizable principal and therefor cannot be a categorical imperative.

Prior to the age of consent your parents or guardians assume full responsibility and accountability for your actions and choices as well as any consequences of your actions. Once you reach the age of consent that responsibility is transferred to you unless you cede that right to a authority, a chief in a village or a government, as we appear to have in the current social contract architecture.

As mentioned in this architecture when you are accused of a injustice you have to submit to recourse you have no choice, that is the one liberty you waive to unlock the absolute right to choose. If you are innocent of the injustice, you are however compensated for your time and inconvenience. It is fair and just, again the logic is sound. For a case to be made at least one directly affected party must be present a injustice cannot be transferred. In the extreme case, when a person is murdered he cannot be present but it doesn’t extinguish the injustice only when both parties are no longer alive is it extinguished.

In this architecture recourse for a injustice is as you see fit, as long as both parties are in full agreement. The logic here is that if both parties agree it can be through any process they choose, a flip of a coin, a duel at 20 yards, game of poker, or the conventional adversarial court system, as is the current default. However, for it to be enforced its process and outcomes must be recorded or documented and placed on the records of all involved. However there is another protocol that exists, it would be a default protocol when there is no other method that is mutually acceptable to all parties. It is recourse through a reasonable (someone who is capable of reason) peer of your choice, called universal common recourse.

The underlying logic is that if you choose your presiding officer you cannot claim bias or injustice, and you have to abide by his ruling, it is final and binding, you have no choice, even if its the death penalty, so chose your peer wisely He is there to Judge you, not the other person, if he is uncomfortable or feels any bias he can get his own peer to judge him, that’s how it works it removes all bias. there are obviously procedural protocol to be in place but that’s the gist of it. A universal common law or law of the universe. The second order, or level, of this logic is that only you know the true value of a injustice committed against you, again this is within reason. If your actions were deliberate or malicious and against local laws and it results in the deliberate loss of a life expect it to cost you the same.

Justice within this protocol is inquisitorial and your peer must be what you would consider a peer and a reasonable person. The architecture allows for any biases that are just, a cultural bias, for example, if both parties are from a particular culture.

In this architecture the person who has perceived that a injustice has occurred needs to have had his time negatively affected. This appears to be consistent with all current just laws, someone enslaved you, didn’t honor a contract, raped you, stole something from you, hurt you or damaged something you own, all the above cause you to spend time doing something you wouldn’t normally have done of your own volition. This is something that only you would be aware of, it is the genesis of a injustice and the trigger for the starting of the process or recourse.

Now just follow the logic here that is what needs to be sound.

Your first course of action, if you are present and able, is to ask them to please cease and desist, maybe they are not aware of the fact that they are committing the injustice, and to remedy any harm caused.  Your next step would be to open a case you would then approach what you would consider a reasonable peer, preferably someone with knowledge in the area of the injustice and convince him that a injustice has occurred. In some cases you would know the involved parties (contractual disputes or dispute with a neighbor) and in other cases you would not (when a theft or rape has occurred). Both cases would follow a similar protocol as they do under the current architecture.

You would present you evidence to your peer he must then satisfy himself that you were subjected to a injustice, you can use national laws and local laws as a guide but remember some laws are unjust and can be legitimately challenged successfully. A example would be something that doesn’t affect you, a extreme example would be if your neighbors kill their offspring. It’s gruesome but they are not involving you, or forcing you to do it, or directly exposing you to it, it is their, and their cultures prerogative, they created them.

So you need to convince the peer a injustice has occurred, say your neighbor is mowing his lawn at 2:00AM that would cause you to spend time doing things that you would ordinarily not do.. be awake. So you would have a case. Your peer would then approach the perpetrator (defendant) and inform him of the case against him and the particulars of the injustice. The defendant would then have his option or turn to present his case to your peer. As your peer is a reasonable person he should be able to reason whether his case will either be stronger than your case or weaker. Any party can call on expert witnesses to help justify their positions, the presiding officer included. If the defendant is at all uncomfortable with the impartiality of the presiding officer, or that he is devoid of logical reason, they have the right to appoint their own peer who they would consider a reasonable person, this appointment cannot be frivolous as it has cost implications so both the defendant and his peer must be satisfied that the bar for impartiality is not met, or that logical reason is not attainable, this course will possibly also result in a one of the presiding officers being severely sanctioned. The case would then continue with two presiding officers much as a court case with two or more judges, to help in the resolution of the issue.

Costs would normally follow the guilty party as it currently is. That would be costs incurred for all parties involved including compensation for the time that the party that the injustice committed against. This value is proportional to the value of the time spent resolving the issue from when it was first documented to the date of resolution. This value is determined from the contribution the individual has made towards the social contract. This prevents abuse of the system. If for some reason there are two presiding officers and they cannot reach consensus a independent third party with a qualification acceptable to both officers is appointed, intuitively that would be someone with a legal background, a lawyer or advocate or arbiter is appointed, to asses the merits of the case and make a ruling. This will include a sanction against one of the presiding officers if it is found that they are bias in some way shape or form. The presiding officer must make a recommendation or rule (precedent) if possible to prevent this happening again. this precedent will only be applicable to the guilty and will be on his record. If this is not the first case that the defendant has been involved in but has had a similar one in the past the sanction can become quite severe, a repeat fraudster can have his second sanction a order of magnitude larger that the first.

As far as compensation goes one needs to be put in the position that one was before the event and to make it more fair the society at large must also benefit from your injustice so the value of the material loss can be imposed as a fine to be paid into the system as a tax and if it involved a whistle blower the whistle blower is entitled to the same. Everybody wins except the dishonest person.

Looking at the logic again.

Due to the unique relationship we have with time it results in the following logic.

The logic of the process

Recourse in through a peer of your choice. The logic of the protocol is that you choose your peer to judge and sentence you and your ability to reasonably make a claim of a injustice. He is not there to judge the other person he can get his own one if he feels so inclined. If your peer is reasonable the other party will consent to your peer. If he feels that your peer is in any way unreasonable he can get his own peer to judge and sentence him and that his claim of a injustice is reasonably made claim.

The logic of a injustice

At it’s highest level is is the fact that you either have a relationship with time or you don’t, you are either alive albeit in poor health, or, and please excuse the bluntness, dead. It is binary and absolute there is no middle ground. In fact I don’t know if anything can be more binary or absolute. At its next level is the fact that while you are alive your consciousness or mind (you) are always in one of two states, you are either in a state of free will or against your will and you know when you are in a state of against your will, it’s equivalent to having a gun maliciously pointed at you or knife used against you for no reason. Most of us spend virtually our whole lives  in a state of free will. In other words doing what you choose to do, work is something you choose to do. A example of against your will would be when someone hurts you, when you are raped, or harmed you without your consent, boxers consent to being hit, when someone takes something that belongs to you, you need to spend time dealing with the theft and to earn money to put yourself back in the position you were in. In short this defines a injustice . If you interrogate the current laws of democratic societies that are based on a social contract this appears  to be the generic universal definition of a injustice. When you are forced to spend time doing something that you don’t want to. If a law exists that forces you to do something or conversely, not do something, then for that law to be just it must be applicable to all and have the same effect on all. It must be universalizable. Also if one checks the structure and effect of any sanction that has ever existed, irrespective of culture or period, age, of existence, it always affects your time negatively. In its extreme they take all your time or impose the death penalty, in its not so extreme iteration you get incarcerated, and in its milder form you get a fine and you have to take your time to earn the money to pay the fine. Justice is inextricably tied to time, it appears that subconsciously we have always realized this and this resulted in the laws somehow taking this into account. The definition of a unjust law is one that places a higher or different value on one persons time over another’s. A example would be AA and BEE in the case of South Africa.
This relationship that we have with time and the fact that it allows for a absolute simple binary definition of a injustice, unlocks a paradigm where justice becomes more of a simple mathematical function that anyone can understand. In fact all conscious minds instinctively appear to understand it, proof of this is evident in the protocol for recourse in this justice system, is the fight or flight mechanism.
On consideration this logical system of justice appears to tie in quite well with our current concept of law except for one issue that is that ownership of you time is absolute and sacrosanct except when you are accused of a injustice.