The Challenge of Transparency-

When I was around twenty two years of age I embraced my whole self. I decided that from that point forward I would fully accept the consequences of my beliefs, opinions, and actions. Whatever I said or did, I would claim as my own both in my heart and publicly.

It is my belief that on that day I became a man.

I also adopted a philosophy of transparency. I did not wish to live a secret life, with the real me behind a facade. I intended to be true to myself, and present that self to the world.

For the most part I have found this a livable philosophy. However, it has not always been easy for others. It leaves me with no option but truth. I can either speak the truth always, or remain silent. Even silence feels like a compromise, a hidden lie, but to speak the truth always is not always possible in society.

People depend on small lies, and they often live in delicately fabricated worlds. Truth speakers can disrupt these realms of delusion, and actually hurt other people. Some people live so deeply in delusion that the threat of truth causes them to become dangerously defensive.

My desire to live as myself and embrace truth did not give me license to destroy the delusions of others. Yet in the dance we call society the truth speaker is often out of step. Success in society, advancement in work, placement in social orders is not determined by truth alone. Often it is not determined by truth at all.

Even success in such an intimate relationship as marriage is challenged by too much truth. It is doable, as my wife and I have been married over three decades. Fortunately, she does not depend on deep delusions to maintain her world. She even challenges me when I stray from my own chosen path.

I have gravitated most often toward people and sub-cultures that embrace or at least tollerate transparency. I have learned to avoid people and orders which are deeply delusional and dangerous to truth speakers. I have accepted that my philosophy is not popular and that it is not common.

Then again, perhaps transparency is simply my own delusion.

Dueling in 21st Century America, United States-

This is a follow up to my previous post pointing out the emotional insufficiency of contemporary justice systems. More specific, the justice system of the United States. The criticism might apply in other modern nations, but this is my nation and the context of most of my own experiences.

I have served in the corrections end of the justice system, holding prisoners for the State of California and the United States both before sentencing and after sentencing. My observation is that as a system it is probably about as good as we might expect. Sure, it could do with some fine tuning, and should always be under development toward as fine a system as possible. However, it is not a train wreck. In general, the system works.

My point of contention was more in the area of satisfying the emotional needs of victims. Systems of vengeance were generally messy, and probably had little to do with any ideal matching the usage of the term "justice," but there was some degree of emotional satisfaction. I have to assume that a multitude of victims having "faith in the system of justice" find themselves quite unsatisfied in the emotional sense of balance and order.

I have seen drunk drivers who have robbed a family of a member through vehicular manslaughter do as little as a year in minimum custody. These drunk drivers were permitted, under supervision, to continue in their jobs while sleeping in a jail dormitory. There are usually other legal stipulations extending over a number of years, and a financial penalty as well.

Such sentences are well reasoned. To deny the drunk driver's family a source of income is to compound an already enormous tragedy. Additionally, the drunk driver did not get drunk with the intent to take a life. They were foolish, stupid and irresponsible, but not inherently terrible by nature.

That may be true, but the offended family may not be emotionally satisfied by such a sentence. It just is not enough. They lost someone they loved, someone who was part of their very life. This is a terrible tragedy, and it was the direct result of another human being's choices. It hurts, and such hurt demands an emotional satisfaction.

It is for that purpose that I would recommend that an organized system of dueling be brought into being. The offended could issue a challenge, which would be reviewed by a "fair fight" committee. A suitable venue would be provided, and appropriate handicaps established. The offended could exercise physical violence upon the challenged, who would be permitted a degree of self defense.

For example, a woman of advanced years had her purse snatched. The perpetrator is apprehended, tried and found guilty. The offended woman, having received a minor injury and considerable inconvenience and a loss of a sense of personal security, elects to exercise her right to challenge as part of the sentencing process.

A fair fight committee establishes a time and place for the duel. Considering the youth and vitality of the perpetrator, they assign leg shackles and the binding of one hand. After further evaluation, the perpetrator is also chained to the wall of the arena, having a limited arc of movement. He is provided with head protection to prevent damage to his brain and eyes, but is otherwise not protected.

The challenger enters the arena. She has been offered a choice of body armor, but elects to use only a bit of padding over chest, back and shoulders. Within the arena are a number of stick weapons, a paint ball gun with ten rounds, and a short leather lash. Training has been provided and counsel regarding how to approach the battle.

The limits on the battle were established by the committee to end the battle on first blood, any injury requiring medical attention, or the physical exhaustion of the challenger. Should the challenger fail to follow the instructions provided through training and counsel, and she closes with the perpetrator and he gain an advantageous physical hold on her, the battle would be ended and the challenger rescued.

I have to imagine that the battle would be interesting. A woman of advanced years laying down the ten allotted rounds of paint balls to bruise her victimizer from a distance, then selecting a suitable stick weapon or lash to apply a more direct satisfaction. Dancing and striking, avoiding the grasp of her victimizer as she tries to land a few blows. The eventual exhaustion of the challenger as the physicality of the battle overwhelms the emotional need for vengeance.

That is the sort of thing I see serving to provide satisfaction to persons offended. The challenge to building a working system of this sort, under the umbrella of a justice system, is to prevent abuses. Social orders which embraced dueling tended to have to deal with abuses. Expansion of a justified duel into feuds and civil wars. Thugs using the guise of dueling to exercise their passion for violence.

I could also see the potential for exploitation of such a system for entertainment. Videos marketed to purportedly offset the cost of the system itself eventually becoming a motive to expand the system and encourage more and more legally sanctioned battles.

Humans are often emotional and sometimes violent. A system of justice that is too abstract and sterile is not sufficient to meet those drives when confronted by injustice. Could a system that embraced carefully regulated dueling serve to meet the emotional needs of victims?

I really don't know. However, the image of a victim slapping their victimizer silly sure does put a smile on my face!

Justice vs Vengeance-

Some of us have an appetite for vengeance. We feel strongly compelled to see wrongs made right, to see injustice corrected forcefully, directly and decisively. We may be driven by an innate passion for order, or we may be drive by an injustice observed or experienced. It is deeply ingrained, and feels like a compelling need.

I know I have such an appetite, such a compulsion. When I observe on the news someone wronged, I do feel for them and their immediate needs. However, there are many others who have that kind of compassion. My focus turns toward the perpetrator, and I am hungry to pursue the vile creature and inflict a comparable suffering upon them.

I recognize the ultimate impact of following through on such compulsions and refrain. Following through would most probably bring injury and suffering on myself, and may inflict such on innocents caught in the battle. I may err in selecting my target, blinded by my zeal and my ultimate lack of necessary skills in locating and bringing to bay the true perpetrator. I may well trigger a chain of counter assaults by my targets, guilty or not.

Modern societies developed systems of justice to provide for the capture of criminals and miscreants, and to administer punishment deemed consistent with the nature of the crime. Such systems are less messy, more likely to be accurate in selecting targets of justice, and inclined toward being fair.

In a perfect form such a system would be satisfactory, to society and the victim of crimes. Were the perpetrators less criminally self interested, they would also recognize the punishment received as fair and be satisfied. Such a perfect form, of course, does not exist.

Vengeance is driven by emotion, and acting out vengeance has an emotional satisfaction. Most systems of justice are simply bureaucratic machines, devoid of emotion and as a consequence devoid of emotional satisfaction for the victim.

They are also costly, and time consuming. For settling many disputes they are probably fine. Insurance claims, matters of rights, that sort of thing. However, for deeply personal injuries, such as rape, murder, and many forms of theft, they can be far from satisfying.

A number of my short stories deal with vengeance. It is a problem I think on, from time to time. How to provide emotional satisfaction to victims when the matter is not just a technical crime, but an offense against the person. I recognize that a society must maintain a system of justice and to maintain such a system they cannot allow citizens to bypass the system for personal satisfaction.

However, is justice devoid of such satisfaction a true form of justice? A citizen denied such satisfaction will have a grievance against the system that failed them emotionally. Too much of that kind of dissatisfaction can erode a society from within. Yet to maintain order a society cannot be driven by the vacillating emotional states of the citizenry.

I shall propose a solution in a subsequent post, a solution that could exist within the existing system of justice, a solution that could provide more immediate emotional satisfaction to victims. However, I would like to throw this out there for discussion. I look forward to seeing where this may go.