Constitution Thought Experiment

Imagine for a moment that you have to write the new Constitution of your country. Normally, this would be a tremendous, but straight forward thought process, in which people believing themselves to be fair minded would list their likes and dislikes about policies, big and small government, limitations, and then the bias would slowly seep in. Most people would write the law of the land as it favors their own actions as being law abiding. If you don't like abortion, firearms, or environmental protection, you might write laws that criminalize those behaviors because from your perspective, these are crimes you would never commit, therefore you would never be criminalized.

Imagine instead, that you are in a very, very different situation. You are in prison. The court is debating a death penalty, and whether your death will be preceded by torture and interrogation. You know they are considering a long, protracted torture. Some are talking about letting you live with some of your members or internal organs removed. The problem is, they haven't explained why you are here. They haven't explained what law you have violated, or what crimes you have been accused of. They haven't even informed you as to whether or not you will have a trial, whether you will have a lawyer who knows these laws, or if you will have a trial by a jury of your peers, or a jury of people who hate you. But you have been given a peculiar task - to discover what the laws are, and what they should be.

So now you are no longer safe, you cannot hide behind your self righteousness, the criminal is not some other person unrelated to you who committed a crime you have nothing to do with. Whatever it is, YOU are guilty, and you have to write the laws convicting you. In this process, you may also begin to consider whether or not your normal objection to a practice or belief is befitting YOUR execution.

When you write a constitution, would it not be most beneficial to society as a whole, if the law is written not from the perspective and benefit of the innocent, but from the perspective of the guilty? When you talk about what rights a person has, are you imagining yourself a victim of harassment, or a prisoner in chains about to be executed for Blasphemy, for talking back to an Authority, or for owning contraband? When it is your life that is about to be destroyed, can you so easily dish out punishments and apply restrictions to the rights of people?

In considering this writing, let the reader view the difference in language between documents such as the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Let the reader consider that an author of a legal and government institution is likely to provide benefits for themselves, rather than benefits to the citizens to whom they desire to exercise control over. It is very easy to write a system of laws that make you a sinless autocrat, but it is very difficult to compose a system of justice in which you are a criminal justifying your own execution.

Originally posted by skynet2015
When you write a constitution, would it not be most beneficial to society as a whole, if the law is written not from the perspective and benefit of the innocent, but from the perspective of the guilty?

I'm not sure that's a true statement. When you're creating a society, you're creating your own personal Utopia. Would your own utopia be one that included criminals?

Doing it the "normal" way seems like you're writing your laws assuming everyone is good, but there are a few bad eggs who need to be removed so that the good people can be happy.

Doing it the other way seems like you're assuming everyone is a criminal and there are a few good eggs thrown in.

Are you suggesting that the criminals should be the ones catered to?

I am suggesting that human beings are inherently flawed, but so is the human interpretation of what is right and wrong. Keeping those two points in mind, it is also a standard that as generations come to pass in every nation with newly established legal codes, the addition of codes follows. The interpretation of codes also follows. In matters of justice, human beings demonstrably fail to err on the side of mercy, rather they cling to the spectacle of suffering masquerading as vindication, as righteous indignation, and Justice becomes a mockery of itself.

A court should always be reluctant and under a great deal of trepidation when dispensing a verdict, rather than zealous and anxious for a trial and conviction. A court that dispenses swift "justice" seldom has time to allow the scales - burdened by the violent motion of added of evidence - to come to standstill. thus men in their haste endowed with the mantle of authority make a routine habit of dispensing injustice and call it otherwise.