Robert Pickton was a pig farmer in British Columbia who [allegedly] murdered 26 women between 1997 and 2001 and buried them on his property. In the name of expediency, the prosecutor decided to move ahead after the first six cases were ready, promising that a second trial would cover the remaining 20 murder allegations. Last year, after an 11 month trial, he was convicted of those six murders (in the second degree). Now, B.C.’s Victim Services is telling victim’s families that a second trial will likely not occur.
Canada does not execute criminals. Pickton received the maximum sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years. In 2032 Pickton can apply for parole. At that time he would have to prove to a parole board that he is rehabilitated and is no longer a danger to others. The chances of his being released are, in the words of his own defense attorney, “extremely slim”.
Friends and family of the remaining 20 alleged victims are outraged by the news that a second trial will not likely proceed. Their pain and desire for their day in court is understandable. But the question has to be asked: what would be accomplished by a second trial? Pickton already received the maximum sentence possible. The first trial took 11 months, so it is conceivable that the second trial could take 3 years. It has been estimated that a second trial could cost $100 million.
The Justice System is not infinite and it is not a make-work program. Are we willing to invest 3 years and $100 million for no gain? While it is understandable that these alleged victim’s families want “their turn” at justice, one has to ask whether this desire is in fact a detriment to the Justice System and, therefore, to justice in general.
There are multiple purposes for a justice system. A couple years ago, I did a poll on another forum regarding what the “primary” purpose of a national justice system should be:
Punishment - a crime committed deserves a “fair” punishment -9 (26.5%)
Rehabilitation - teach the criminal to better function in society -7 (20.6%)
Deterance - scare others away from a life of crime -4 (11.8%)
Preventative - prevent repeat crime (by separation or execution) -8 (23.5%)
Restitutional - a criminal ought to recompense the victim or the victims family for wrongs incurred -2 (5.9%)
Perceptual - society needs to “feel” that justice is done, or chaos will ensue -3 (8.8%)
Prevent in-progress crime - police should stop crime that is happening, but no further action should occur -0 (0%)
Other - none of the above should be the primary purpose -1 (2.9%)
Of these, arguably Perception is the one that would not be addressed by a life conviction (which was not given in this case) for a single crime while ignoring other crimes. To the extent that the goal of Perception is important to your justice system, this is a vital failing. While it may be unlikely this person will get paroled, the untried crimes COULD add additional years to the sentence, thus better addressing Prevention of repeat crime.
Possibility of stricter punishment would also apply to Punishment, though that depends on whether the system believes killing 26 people deserves a worse penalty than killing 6. For the record, I think it is dangerous to have a level beyond which no further penalty can be inflicted, since it removes disincentive for killing more people after a certain point. Of course, to do this my “ideal” system would have to include some form of controllably inflicted pain.
To summarize, the premise of the article is flawed. The spending of $100 million dollars would not be for “no gain”; it would be spent to allow the populous to “feel” as if justice was served. If a population does NOT feel that the government imposes justice, they will resort to vigilante action. Answering whether the trial is vital therefore requires knowing how important the trials are to the national population in question, and whether not having them results in a less stable society.
I can definitely say, as a person already dispensed towards the inefficiency/inability of government to perform justice, vigilantism is an attractive alternative.
The guy should have already been executed and thus this issue would be a moot point (unless he was tried in absentia/post mortem). The lack of a death penalty is significantly worse for justice than not prosecuting every single murder count. I do like Atanamis’ allusion to torture.
Rack ‘em!
I believe the primary purpose of justice is to punish wrongdoing. The need for the victims to feel some closure is important, but it is not an important part of justice. So, no, justice will not be served by spending $100 million to further prosecute a man who already has the maximum penalty. If the public desires to spend that money in the interests of providing closure to the families of the victims, then so be it. But that isn’t justice.
It seems to me that if these charges are being dropped, it is more likely that the Crown has decided they don’t have sufficient evidence to support the charges, than that they feel it would be redundant to prosecute a man who will probably spend the rest of his natural life in prison. The attorney general’s reasoning; that the public interest is best served by dropping these charges based solely on the presumption of Pickton’s guilt should offend anyone with a thirst for truth or justice. I also feel that Pickton’s trial and conviction were a mess and his appeal is much stronger than either the public or the media are acknowledging. The jury’s decision to convict him of second degree murder can be interpreted in a number of ways, but given the fact that they asked whether they could find him guilty even if they felt he had acted only indirectly in the murders, and given the vague and arguably incorrect answers the jury received regarding this point, it is not at all clear that the jury felt Pickton acted alone or indeed even directly. If it is the case that the court felt there were other perpetrators involved in these murders, perhaps even more directly involved than the accused then the public interest must be protected by pursuing clarity on these issues. The point of a trial is to determine the facts and provide clarity as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Dylan said, “…should offend anyone with a thirst for truth or justice.”
Yes, I’m offended. There is no justice for the hurting loved ones left behind, and not everyone can get on with their life when an injustice has been done them.
But of course, money speaks louder than almost anything else, and “feelings” of victims are of little concern to a massive justice machine.
On the other hand, I’m not stupid so I do see why some would consider more trials a waste of time and money (Dylan, I don’t know anything about the actual merits of the case, I’m just assuming, as intended, that they guy really did murder the other 20 as well). That being the case, I wonder if the judicial system could try to find some way to bring closure to the victims’ loved ones, even if it is something simple like writing them a letter acknowledging the irregularities of not having a trial, offering to pay for counseling, etc.
If a jury can convict Pickton with second degree murder for merely being the “clean-up crew” based on a strong assumption others were involved. As a form of compensation for the verdict Pickton has admitted and should be made to reveal to the authorities the identities of the other individuals. What about the people that remain in the community today avoiding the responsibility of their actions?
What would Pickton have to gain in protecting them by withholding the very information that may warrant a whole series of separate new trials. These people continue to enjoy life and have no problem leaving Robert to rot-alone. That could be the reason why they chose him for being too stupid to know any better in the event things went wrong. In reality it was only a matter of time before the truth would be exposed. Sadly, Pickton is only a fragment of a bigger picture the world is not yet ready to see. Common sense suggests he certainly did not act alone.
Is Robert Pickton a pseudonym for Sweeney Todd?
Atanamis wrote: “For the record, I think it is dangerous to have a level beyond which no further penalty can be inflicted, since it removes disincentive for killing more people after a certain point….To summarize, the premise of the article is flawed. The spending of $100 million dollars would not be for “no gain”; it would be spent to allow the populous to “feel” as if justice was served.”
Your premise is worth consideration, that Justice is about perception. So wouldn’t having further convictions with no increase in prison term have the reverse effect in that it would cause the “populous” to feel that justice wasn’t served?
Defining the “Perception” goal of a justice system
The “perception” goal of a criminal system is about entirely that: perception. If people FEEL like an official statement of guilt is all that matters, “perception of justice” has been realized. This is true regardless of the penalty inflicted on the perpetrator. In particular, those hurt by a crime want the acknowledgment of their suffering and an “official” placing of blame. This might even be necessary in a case where the perpetrator is already dead (depending on the needs of a culture). “Closure” often requires such an official statement of fact.
Importance of “Perception” as a goal in a Justice System
This perception is far a more important goal of a criminal system than is often recognized, since we do not have a firm standard of “just punishments” that ought to be inflicted. You stated that the key goal of the system should be to “punish wrongdoers”, but what constituted “just punishment”? If a culture believes that murderers should be executed, is a fine really going to make them believe justice has been done? Is there an absolute standard of “just punishment” that can be applied, only the standard that makes the citizenry satisfied? Regardless, a dissatisfied citizenry will result in vigilantism taking place.
Justifying the existence of a common criminal system (even from a anarcho-capitalistic bias)
The problem with vigilantism is that without a commonly agreed upon standard of justice, things quickly spiral into feuds that end in massive deaths. You give me incorrect change at your store, so I smash your car window. You throw a brick through my home window, injuring my wife. I retaliate by injuring your wife as well, you kill me in revenge. My family decides to wipe yours out. This happened because we didn’t have a commonly agreed upon standard for punishing crimes.
A better standard is that you and I join a group that specifies a set of penalties for infractions against group members. If you give me bad change, we have an arbitrator who will help us determine the dispute. If I get mad and break your car window, again we have rules for addressing the circumstance. Pre-determined rules make us both less likely to emotionally escalate the situation, and provides a standard for determining who was right and wrong. If one of us refuses to submit to the agreed rules, the whole group can force that submission. The family can clearly understand what the expectations were, and why the use of force was needed. The parties too close to see the situation clearly can trust to the other parties to act rationally, just as we would do if the situation were reversed.
Vigilantism is NOT individuals enforcing a commonly agreed upon justice system in the means agreed to be legitimate. Vigilantism is an individual refusing to submit to the agreed upon rules and forcing what they believe to be deserved punishment on someone who may or may not meed the agreed upon standard of conduct for guilt. This is dangerous because in time of emotional upheaval an individual may well hold a standard of guilt different from their own norm, and if their norm differs significantly from those around them force will need to be used to prevent their actions.
As an example of “different standards”, someone might decide that a woman failing to cover her face was deserving of death. If we have a system that encourages all members to enforce their own law, the ability to tell such an individual to respect the rules of law are reduced. Unless your standard of justice is the strictest of all, you don’t WANT other people taking the enforcement of punishment entirely into their own hands. This use of force therefore far better addressed by common agreement of the populous (though of course those who too significantly disagree will STILL resort to vigilantism).
Atanamis, I thought that was a pretty good look at private justice possibilities, even in an anarcho-capitalist state. I was curious how you apply it to a scenario.
Say a thief breaks into my car and steals $2,000 worth of property. The police are not willing to do anything about it. What if I have the means of identifying the thief. What are my options for obtaining justice?
When my older son was in high school, someone stole his graphing calculator (they weren’t all that cheap back then). He was pretty sure who took it, so he confronted the guy, who of course denied it. So my son broke into his locker and stole it back. End of story.
See, now, that seems a perfectly acceptable application to me right now. But Atanamis brings up a valid point of conflicting justice models.
There are two considerations to be made, one is the utilitarian value of respecting the “rule of law” while the second is the possibility of a moral mandate to respect ruling authority regardless of utilitarian value.
Utilitarian Approach:
Better to change the law: As expressed above, there is value in having a single standard authorizing the use of force. This could be an arbitrator upholding your right to seek redress through physical force (thus removing the need to hire others to exert that force on your behalf in the form of police officers). In any such scenario though, there WILL be occasions in which a member of the group disagrees with the ruling by the arbitrator. In this test case, perhaps the police do not believe your method of identification meets the required standard, or the rules of investigation do not permit the needed type of search. Ideally, if you believe those types of searches SHOULD be allowed or that the standard of evidence should be reduced, you should change the laws such that the apply equally to everyone. Just remember that in doing so the standards you allow for your own benefit might eventually be used against you.
Weighing the costs: Until the changes in law happen though (if ever), you are left with the choice of continuing to benefit from cooperation with the “authorized authority”, or pursuing your own justice (vigilantism). The problem with this is that in doing so there is no oversight into your actions by others who may have a cooler head. You might take regrettable action against someone who really wasn’t responsible for the theft. Worse, you provide justification to others to take their OWN disagreements with the law into their own hands, which might work to your future detriment, Vigilantism begets vigilantism.
Ignoring the law: That said, at some point I’d definitely be willing to ignore laws I felt were too lax or unenforced. If someone were to rape and murder my wife but not suffer appropriately under the law, unless I had strong additional obligations (raising children is the only one I can imagine) I’d kill him. I would then be willing to submit myself to the local law enforcement, hoping to somewhat repair the damage done to general respect for the “rule of law” by my actions. Anytime “rule of law” is ignored (for any reason), it reduces the power of that law and its value to the group. Only when that value is entirely diminished does it make logical sense to ignore it entirely.
Moral Perspective:
On moral side, one might argue that there is an inherent expectation for people to respect authority, so long as that authority is not directly hurting innocents. Many people would argue that the Bible teaches this kind of principle. If one adheres to this position, then the only time you have the right to oppose government is to directly help another person. (Christians would also tend to allow civil disobedience for commands for them to behave in ways contrary to what is commanded in the Bible.) Such a mentality would NOT allow one to disagree a law simply to regain personal property.
From a utilitarian perspective this was likely an acceptable action, since the loss of general respect for “rule of law” in the re-theft was minimal. This loss in respect for law would have to be weighed against the risk of retaliation/ill will caused by reporting the theft to the authorities (likely school administration). From a moral perspective, it would depend on one’s position regarding whether it is “right” to violate the law to regain your property. Do two wrongs make a right? In this case, the answer may depend on how one interprets the authority granted to government by their world view.
I will reject the utilitarian view for both philosophical and pragmatic reasons. I don’t agree with the idea from the start, so the idea that I should follow the law because it’s in a broad “best interest” or “common good” isn’t morally acceptable (and pragmatically workable). But that is a massive other discussion, which we’ve all likely had on this site five times already.
I think an arbiter is probably the best means to settle a dispute. But I can see how this could easily fall back towards vigilantism. For example, I find the thief and confront him - I tell him that I know an arbiter to solve the problem. He tells me to sod off.
I guess that gets to the question of when is an independent means of carrying out justice acceptable?
Precisely. In cases where force must be used to compel the acceptable behavior of an individual (such as your hypothetical thief), having a commonly accepted standard for the use of that force helps to avoid abusive vigilantism and escalation. Of course, if you expect to be the most physically powerful entity, having a commonly agreed upon standard for the use of force may be of less value.