Criminology

In the treatise On Liberty, Mill opens his essay with a critique against the tyranny of the majority. According to him, the authority of the government must be controlled by the liberty of the citizens. If the government authority is without limit, then it is a breeding ground for tyranny. To prevent his, Mill proposes two mechanisms of control 1) to define the rights belonging to citizens, and 2) the creation of constitutional checks by which the assent of the community would represent its interests. Democracy seems to be a safe form of political association. But, as Mill notes, the interests of the majority are often prioritized rather than the common good. It is possible that those who exercise power are not the same people over whom it is exercised. Now, the majority are always capable of overposing its interests  institutionalizing them into political policies at the cost of the minority. Hence, in a democracy, the tyranny of the majority is always a plausible scenario.

For Mill, the tyranny of the majority is worse than the tyranny of government or of a dictator because it is not limited in the political arena. It is possible to be protected against a tyrant but almost impossible against prevailing public opinion. Society determines interests  as such people will be subject to prevailing conditions. The general opinion will become the basis of all rules of conduct within society. In short, it is very hard to establish safeguards in law against the tyranny of the majority.

Referring to Rousseaus concept of general will, Mill argues that the majority opinion may not be the rational or correct opinion. Naturally, individuals will align themselves with the side with the greatest number. This is a source of security and power. When individuals coalesce, they form an almost unstoppable conglomerate of subgovernment. The majority becomes, in essence, the controlling power of the state. Individuals, whether from the majority or the minority, can never be totally free because of the perpetuation of this action. As Mills argues
Society can and does execute its own mandates and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling (Mill, 18591993).

The tyranny of the majority has its modern version. Public opinion  conducted through surveys and sporadic interviews  often determines public preferences. Over the past 50 years, the US Congress has had been tuned to the voice of public polls. Because polls express the sentiment of the majority, their interests become the prevailing bases of policy making.

The term justice has many meanings. According to Robinson, justice, in nominal terms is conformity to truth, reason or fact (Robinson, 2003329). However, this definition is overtly broad in application. Justice in its narrow sense is 1) punishment of individuals guilty of crimes (justice as an outcome), 2) protection of individual rights to prevent innocent individuals from being wrongfully subjected to punishments (justice as process), and 3) equal treatment of individuals under the law without reference to race, creed, political affiliation, and status (social justice) (Robinson, 2003330).

In nominal terms, justice should accomplish impartial equity. Based on the principles of freedom, fairness, compassion, and utilitarianism, social justice should be the basis of criminal justice. Destructive criminal justice policies based on vengeance should be replaced with restorative justice practices based on social compassion and forgiveness. Rather than bathing on the generalistic principle of equality, justice must also be distributive.

Robinson (2003) fails to discuss or even mention the necessity of divine justice. Divine justice is derived from the intricate application of divine law. Divine law is a general law established by God  or at least assumed to have general application. Divine law is the basis of all rules of conduct within society. In addition, it also has a metaphysical application  it extends beyond the faculty of the human mind. This is in contrast with natural law. Natural law is a law set by nature. It has universal validity  although within the confines of the natural world.

Suppose that there is an individual accused of killing another individual. The accused pleads not guilty. The prosecution offers weak evidences against the accused. In reality, the accused committed the atrocity. Following the rules of court, the judge dismisses the case for lack of evidence. An appeal is made to higher courts of law but the case is summarily dismissed. Procedural justice is followed  the same case can be said of criminal justice. But, one issue remains, If the accused is not punished in this lifetime, then justice is not attained.

In divine justice, the accused will still face punishment in the afterlife. Rather than a consortium of human judges, it will be God presiding in the heavenly courtroom. This is not an idiosyncratic view of reality. This is a definitive exhaustion of non-conventional justice. The accused is punished for his crimes on earth and is sentenced for damnation (or if you are a Catholic, perhaps in the purgatory).

This scenario is a simplistic view of justice. Every wrongdoing done on earth is also punished in heaven. Because morality is derived from divine law, then punishment must also be based from divine law. By transitivity, an individual guilty of crime must also be punished based on divine law. This is not double-jeopardy. This is merely an excitation of divine justice. This view of justice completes Robinsons model of justice.