Jurisprudence and its adjudications are constructed on the cornerstones of “right” and “wrong”, “good” and “evil”. By these definitions a correct solution can be reached with regard to any action or actions of man.
The fundamental test of rationality is the ability to differentiate “right” from “wrong”. The fundamental factors in establishing censure are “good” and “evil”.
Without precision definitions of these four factors any structure of law or judgment is rendered forceless and becomes involved through its introduction of arbitrary factors which seek to adjudicate by introducing errors to nullify errors.
Penal codes which will answer all needs can only be written when precision, scientific definitions exist for the four factors. Civil equity which will not lead to injustice can only then be formulated and established.
The problems of jurisprudence, and indeed all judgment, are inextricably interwoven with the problems of behavior. An ideal situation would be a society of sane and rational persons conducting their lives within a sane and rational culture: for the person, the culture, or both may be infirm.
The irrationalities of the culture enter into the equation of conduct as factors through the door of education, social custom and jurisprudence.
It is not enough for the individual to be sane and rational, for he finds himself within the confines of a society which has compounded into its culture many unreasonable prejudices and customs.
The establishment of the actual source of wrong and evil is the fundamental purpose of jurisprudence.
The actual source unfortunately lies in the irrationalities of those past generations who, working with limited knowledge and oppressed by their environs, sought solutions with equations which contained false and indefinite factors.
These generations, long entombed cannot be held accountable. We are the heirs to all the ages of the past and that is good: but we are the heirs as well to all the irrationalities of the past and that is evil.
In the absence of broad reason the adjudication of the acts of a man by society cannot be performed with justice. The insane and the criminal, the hypochondriac and the merciless dictator, the apathetic who wander the streets are all, each one, gripped and driven by their own sources of unreason which, in the form of social injustice, pound them from without.
The acts of irrationality, violence, desperation, and fear are manifestations of what has been done to, not by, these individuals.
Given a society of rational individuals and a culture from which all unreason has been deleted, then and only then, can a man be truly responsible for his own actions.
For now we must accept the shadow of responsibility for the fact of it.
Since society itself bears at least partial responsibility for maladaptive behavior, surely the process of punishment can be refined so as to sentence the individual not to further injustice by imprisonment without hope of proper treatment.
The incarceration of individuals for the sake of retribution is pointless, unless the society itself is so unjust and corrupt that it desires to operate on sadistic principles.
There is more than idealism here, for it can be shown that irrationality in individuals and the society rises in progressive ratio to the amount of punishment employed.
A culture, to say nothing of jurisprudence, grows complex and unwieldy in progressive ratio to the number of new evils it must introduce in an effort to nullify old evils.
At last there can be no reason; there can be only force.
Where there lives force without reason it results in rage.
We as individuals must reject the rule of force over reason, fear over compassion, retribution over forgiveness.
We must, if we are to continue to progress, realize nothing is gained by judging past error and reprimanding it with further injustice.
Not only is nothing to be gained, but our very progress and life itself may be left at risk.
Attack unreason, not the man.