Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Models of Justice

From: Scott David Gray <>
Date: Wed May 17 21:36:00 2006

Hi Terrence,

I think that you've captured my feelings well. And I think that you've
expressed the dichotomy well.

I am happy to advocate that individual people -- acting as individuals
-- advise, consult, and cajole people that they care about. That's
what people *do* -- in an effort to help one another. It's wholly
natural. Particularly when their friends are in enough trouble to have
crossed into the criminal justice system.

But I meant what I said, about believing that the *state* should stay
out of giving people advice on how to live. And that goes for
individuals who hold enough personal power, that their words have the
authority of law.

If I'm in trouble with the law -- please, as a human being, help me
when I seek assistance and advice. But, if you are a judge, don't pass
a sentence on me that is designed to change me!

Does that help clarify my own stance?

On 5/17/06, Terence Purtell <> wrote:
> By "teaching a person to live a better life," I was promoting neither
> positive law (law that tells people what to do) nor negative law (law that
> tells people what not to do). "Morals" was a poor choice of terms on my
> part, because I didn't even want to bring rules into the picture one way or
> the other.
> What I meant was that, if we have some sort of strategy that helps a
> criminal learn not to commit the same harm in the future (and to voluntarily
> not commit the same harm), then we'd have an effective method of justice
> with long-lasting results. But this method would not even involve rules. It
> would rather involve long discussions until everybody comes to terms and
> empathizes and voluntarily makes up.
> The one disagreement may be that I'm a bit more idealistic--or more naive,
> if you prefer--than Scott. I think the purpose of justice is education--not
> necessarily about morals, but about how to interact with people and our
> environment. I think justice should make us smarter and more perceptive,
> just as school should.
> Scott, on the other hand, thinks (and if I'm wrong, my apologies) that the
> purpose of justice is to "get past" isolated incidents so that both parties
> can move on with their lives. According to him justice has no power
> whatsoever to teach, whether by violence, moral dictums, discussing, or
> otherwise.
> Did I state the argument correctly? Am I too high in the sky about justice's
> ability to make us smarter people, or is Scott's outlook on justice too
> modest?
> Scott David Gray <> wrote:
> On 5/17/06, Terence Purtell wrote:
> >
> > This "justice" discussion provides a nice complement to a discussion about
> > Sudbury. Since the best kind of justice results when we teach a criminal
> to
> > live a better life--a point Phil was hinting at--it follows that
> principles
> > of justice are equally guidelines that all educators should follow.
> You say that the best sort of justice teaches a person how to
> live a better life?
> I disagree.
> When the state starts telling people how to live -- as opposed to
> simply saying in answer to a crime "*that* is an example of how you
> are *not* allowed to live in our society" -- then the state has
> abandoned pluralism, and become a state that seeks to control its
> members rather than to exist at their will.
> There are two kinds of law. One kind is the sort that tells you
> what *not* to do, and the other is the sort that tells one expressly
> what *to* do.
> The first sort of law -- "negative" law -- is often in harmony
> with liberty -- it exists to keep one person's liberty from imposing
> unduly on another person's liberty. The second sort, however, is
> onerous and demanding, and destructive to liberty.
> The notion of law that dictates what *to* do, is certainly at the
> core of what most educators do. It is also at the heart of law in such
> places as North Korea, Modern China, and the Soviet Union. It is
> destructive, dehumanizing, and unamerican.
> The notion of law that only intervenes to stop something
> untoward, and then lets the person decide for themselves how to
> navigate the society, is the a notion of law in harmony with deep US
> culture, and with Sudbury schools.
> Certainly in Sudbury schools, none of us who ever serve on JC
> have any illusions that the sentences we pass will "teach" morals.
> Perhaps the human process of thinking and navigating our justice
> system plays a role for some kids, but the sentences themselves don't.
> Rather, the main value of our sentences is that they offer a path
> to the person who broke the community's trust in this or that way, to
> gain that trust back.
> Being restricted from the playroom for two days after using
> someone's toy without permission doesn't teach the value of respecting
> personal property. Frankly, every healthy four year old already
> *knows* that people don't like their stuff messed with! But standing
> up, admitting what you did, and agreeing to pay a social cost (e.g.
> staying out of the Playroom for two days) makes it a lot easier to get
> *past* the incident, and for you and the person who was offended by
> the incident to forgive and forget, and move on.
> Learning happens, at best, accidentally. As an aside to thinking
> and mulling questions about social responsibility and justice. In
> one's own mind. A free society seeks only to chastise for bad
> behavior, and not to change minds -- leaving the mind as the private
> domain of the individual.
> > Forcing the thief to compensate for what was stolen won't teach the thief
> > anything.
> That's probably right. But compensation is a necessary first
> start, though, for justice -- for a means of letting people who have
> broken social codes win back a sense of trust. There's no way that I
> will *ever* trust a person who stole from me and *didn't* pay me back,
> regardless of how many damn lectures were given to her/him by the
> prison warden!
> > I like Phil's 2 definitions of "justice": 1) revenge, eye for an eye; & 2)
> > compensation, getting back your stolen goods with interest from the thief.
> > Insofar as the purpose of justice is to keep crime at a minimum, then we
> > need to determine whether either of these definitions works toward that
> end.
> >
> > It was contended that governments that take revenge "treat a human being
> as
> > though they were a dumb animal". It was implied, I think, that revenge is
> an
> > insult to our inherently higher intelligence because it doesn't TEACH
> > morals. And if it succeeds in suppressing immoral acts, this suppression
> is
> > only temporary. Ultimately Joe Schmo will kill me cause I killed his wife,
> > and then my friend will kill Joe Schmo, etcetcetc, and we kill each other
> to
> > infinity and no good is ever achieved. Fair enough, I agree: revenge =
> > INjustice
> >
> > Phil went on to say that REAL justice occurs when the violator corrects
> the
> > damage as well as possible. He used the example of the Montessori project
> > and California judges who defer civil cases to arbitration (did I say that
> > right???). In these examples, it was contended, criminals "learn by
> doing".
> >
> > I like this idea of criminals "learning" something. If we can a) get the
> > thief to return stolen goods with interest and b) teach and convince
> her/him
> > never to steal again: that is no doubt effective justice and we'll all be
> > for the better! The problem is HOW do we teach a criminal to change. HOW
> can
> > someone mediate between violator and victim such that damage is repaired
> and
> > the violator actually learns to live a better life?
> >
> > Forcing the thief to compensate for what was stolen won't teach the thief
> > anything. Moreover, appealing to the thief's intellect might not work if
> the
> > thief still feels justified in stealing (like, say, ValJean). Ordering
> > criminals around is, to use Phil's analogy, about as futile as that lady
> > shoo-ing cats away from her precious glass: the freakin cats are just
> gonna
> > come back when she's not looking. So I'm not entirely convinced that
> having
> > a mediator or small-group arbitration is any more effective than plain ol
> > revenge.
> >
> > There's something to this small-group idea though. People are more liable
> to
> > be humane to one another when working together in close quarters. It's
> much
> > harder to kill someone face-to-face who's pleading for dear life, than it
> is
> > to drop bombs on faceless buildings from a plane. Personally I believe
> that,
> > if we commit ourselves to having a patient discussion with whoever wronged
> > us, it'll be for everyone's greater good. I usually feel better after a
> long
> > frank discussion. Socializing, like writing, is how we get a grasp on our
> > environment and, in so doing, we become wiser. In our courts, the two
> > opponents don't really have any direct discussions, and there's something
> > wrong with that. Let's follow this small-group-arbitration version of
> > justice--maybe someone here's brave enough to outline how such arbitration
> > should take place--and see what we come up with.
> >
> > These days we've come to think that physical force (like, ruler-slapping
> > nuns) is no way to teach children in school. Much less do we believe that
> > such force (like, spankings) should be used to teach children "lessons" at
> > home. Yet we as a society still order children to do things that they'd be
> > reluctant to do without our prodding, like memorizing vocabulary words for
> > tests: which is something like ordering a criminal to make amends when
> > she/he is reluctant to do so. Yes, our intentions to educate are
> wonderfully
> > noble; but our usual methods probably stink. From what I can see, Sudbury
> is
> > unique in that it doesn't order children to do things at all. To have
> > effective justice we probably need such a system in which the criminal
> > voluntarily makes recompense and changes for the better, in the same way
> > that, at Sudbury, children voluntarily learn and mature. If the
> > justice-education correlation is rightly placed, maybe Sudbury's methods
> can
> > offer clues as to how we should deal with criminals. But again, as I
> stated
> > before, HOW we go about enacting such an educative change in a criminal
> > requires another night's worth of writing.
> >
> > I know very little about law and politics, much less about how schools
> like
> > Sudbury work. So if I'm just beating an obvious issue to death or
> anything,
> > please enlighten me so that I don't bore you in the future.
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil Osborn wrote:
> > I found the discussion of "Justice" from the ONLINE
> > LIBRARY of interest, as this is a field to which I've
> > devoted quite a bit of time. One cannot be an expert
> > at everything, of course, and the posted discussion
> > was cogent and well written, but is stuck in the
> > common views of "justice" that prevail and have
> > resulted in the U.S. having both the highest total
> > number and the highest percentage of people
> > incarcerated of any country in the world, and STILL a
> > high crime rate.
> >
> > The main objection I have is to the idea of "criminal
> > justice" - punishments, etc. Even animals quickly
> > learn that a "punishment" simply means that they did
> > something you don't like. It teaches nothing, but,
> > more importantly, it has no relation to actual
> > justice. In fact, it creates more INjustice.
> >
> > I define "justice" as getting what you deserve. I.e.,
> > if you are responsible for something, good or bad,
> > then you should be the beneficiary or loser. If
> > someone else chooses to block you from the benefits or
> > losses of your actions, then a situation of INjustice
> > prevails.
> >
> > It is then the moral responsibility of whoever
> > diverted justice to undo any damage done to you, in so
> > far as possible. When the damage is done to more than
> > one person, or to an organization of persons, such as
> > a school - as in, disrupting a stage play, for example
> > - then the principle is still the same. People have
> > been put into a state of injustice by someone else's
> > actions.
> >
> > There is a reasonable compensation that should result,
> > essentially putting things back to where they were,
> > and the rational purpose of a judicial system is to
> > assure that this happens. This is the basis of the
> > Common Law, which has no criminal component.
> >
> > When the state or the school's judicial body makes a
> > decision to "punish," rather than to set things back
> > to right, then justice is blocked. When they do both
> > - assigning restitution AND punishing, then they treat
> > a human being as though they were a dumb animal. If
> > things are set back to where they should be, then what
> > further cause does "justice" have?
> >
> > My background: Briefly, I was involved with a group of
> > anarchists in the early '70's who created the area's
> > first Montessori School - with a difference. We set
> > up a school monetary system, on the cookie standard,
> > and contracted out the various jobs at the school to
> > the students, who ranged from 2.5 to 7 years old.
> >
> > With the earned money, the kids could buy treats from
> > the school store, make deals between themselves over
> > toys, etc., and resolve disputes. Rather than have a
> > centralized judicial system, we encouraged the kids to
> > hire a mediator from among the other kids or the staff
> > when there was a dispute.
> >
> > This system, I'm sure, sounds very mercenary to many,
> > but it took "justice" out of the realm of power,
> > violence and authority and put it squarely into the
> > Montessori domain of learning by doing, via corrective
> > feedback from reality, not a teacher. (Unfortunately,
> > one of the violations of the Montessori Method is its
> > own use of the directors as police, judge and jury, a
> > role that would be seen as completely in violation of
> > Montessori philosophy if applied to any other field.)
> >
> > I should like to entertain discussion on this issue,
> > if anyone is intertested, as it seems to be at the
> > very heart of so many of our problems as a society,
> > and Sudbury appears to be a good place to think
> > through this kind of issue and possibly try alternate
> > solutions.
> >
> > For a more detailed account of positive suggestions
> > please visit my blog:
> >
> --
> -- Scott David Gray
> Reply-to:
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-sudbury-model mailing list
> ________________________________
> New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save
> big.

-- Scott David Gray
Received on Wed May 17 2006 - 21:35:04 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:14 EDT