6. The Ergonocracy Judicial and Security Model
In this chapter we will analyse two models that are directly linked - the Judicial Model and the Security Model. These were created to provide citizens with increased security and to reorganise the way in which justice is applied, upgrading both its efficiency and effectiveness.
The main characteristics of the Judicial Model reside in the introduction of mechanisms to make justice work more quickly and efficiently; we will also present new strategies for the rehabilitation of convicted felons.
The Security Model aims to put forward new concepts and policies, with new ways to organise crime-fighting through strategies designed to enable on-the-spot arrests for criminals caught in the act. The idea is to institute powerful deterrents aimed at drastically reducing crime.
We will also analyse our Drug Problem Solution Model.
These models share in the spirit of Ergonocracy, which strives to adapt to human characteristics rather than expecting man to modify his nature. Furthermore, Ergonocracy claims that the concept of freedom should prevail above all else, although it recognises the need for laws, which should be simply and pragmatically framed and lead directly to problem-solving and conflict resolution.
6.2 Underlying principles
The principle of separation between civil and criminal courts
According to Ergonocracy vision, criminal courts and civil courts have a completely distinct function. Criminal courts are one of the internal pillars of security, whereas administrative courts mediate between citizens or between citizens and institutions. Because these entities are completely separate and share no synergy, it makes sense to manage them as distinct Public Functions.
The principle of the swiftness of justice
This principle advocates that the quality of justice will be severely compromised if the system works slowly, as most citizens will feel either that there is no justice or that it is ineffective. In other words, people will lose confidence in the justice system.
This is particularly grave in the case of a citizen who happens to be innocent. When a person is charged with a crime, most people conclude that he or she is guilty, which damages a person’s reputation and affects his or her standing in the community. This stigma never completely disappears, even if the person is subsequently exonerated of any wrongdoing.
It is elementary common sense that justice will only be truly effective if it is expeditiously applied. Otherwise, one of its most fundamental objectives will be subverted, as it will no longer constitute a deterrent to crime. In addition, these delays affect the criminal investigation process. The longer this process takes, the more difficult it is for investigators to obtain the necessary evidence, especially in the area of ensuring the reliability of how witnesses recall details of what they saw.
The principle of simplification of judicial processes (lawsuits) Delayed justice is often aggravated by the fact that certain lawyers choose to strategically take advantage of statutory deadlines in order to delay decisions for as long as possible. The rules of the system must offer protection from this kind of behaviour.
The principle of separation of criminals
Criminals should receive a penalty in keeping with the crime committed. For this to take place, distinct types of crimes should be identified, linked to the motives behind these crimes. Each crime should involve different punishments and treatments aimed at ensuring that criminals come to understand and recognise the harm that they had caused.
The principle of deterring crime
Deterrence is not assured by retrospective logic based on the fear of getting caught after a prolonged investigation.
On the contrary, deterrence will be much more effective if a prospective criminal is afraid of being caught red-handed, causing him or her to think twice before committing a crime. This cannot be achieved by increasing police presence on the streets, as there would never be enough police to simultaneously protect all citizens everywhere. The only solution is the intensive use of video surveillance systems, supplemented by an immediate response police patrol, a system that will be explained in detail later on.
6.3 The distinction between good and evil is a socially constructed concept
There are several other notions that need to be internalised in order for us to have a clear image of what it means to be a human being, how we can better evolve and how we can improve social relationships.
One of these concepts is the distinction between good and evil and how this concept evolved throughout human history. We will endeavour to analyse this issue using a clear and completely rational approach.
To start with, the idea behind the distinction between good and evil is a mere illusion. Even though it is useful from a social point of view, it is not self-evident, nor does it follow natural rules.
In fact, if we observe nature at work in the jungle, the only law is that the strongest rules - the law of survival - in a deadly game between prey and predator. The concept of kindness only manifests itself during mating season or among members of the same family, between parent and offspring, for example, and lasts only as long as necessary for the raising of the offspring.
There are of course exceptions that can be observed in creatures living in social communities as they strive for a common, previously defined purpose.
As human beings are social animals, this concept has always played an important role in society. It has been instrumental in defining standards of conduct and social behaviours, it forms the basis for most world religions and it has always been crucial to the survival of our social structures.
Most religions promote the so-called common good. But what is good? Some people may define it as a blend of peace, harmony and love, the concepts usually associated with this notion.
But what perspective are we using here?
If we look at this issue from a social perspective, it makes a lot of sense. The concept of good and evil is an intelligent means created by societies so that they can better organise and function. If we are accustomed to the idea of helping our neighbours and always behave in a kind and generous manner, the idea is that good will be widely propagated and, sooner or later, everyone will end up benefiting from this mind-set. In fact, it is easy to see how cooperation is a win-win situation99
for all parties. This concept clearly worked well in small tribes such as the ones that existed in the past. People who chose not to participate were easily identified and ostracised by the others. Nowadays, given the fact that most people live in crowded communities, in both large and medium-sized cities, they tend to feel that good or bad conduct does not matter, nor does it result in any real change. For this reason, many people choose to live egocentric lives - following the principle of every man for himself. They select the path of least resistance and effort in the short run. Besides, they know that there will always be a significant group of people - called “free-riders”100 in economics - who do their utmost to receive as much as they can while contributing the least, doing only what they are obliged to do, which, for them would preferably be nothing at all. This type of behaviour causes most people to avoid striving for the common good, as they do not wish to appear dim-witted. This suggests that societies should be constructed in such a way as to make these behaviours impossible, so that each member of society ought to know that good conduct is the most rational path to follow.
If we look at it from the universe’s perspective, it makes absolutely no difference how humans behave, provided that change ends up occurring. Change occurs both in times of peace as well as in times of war, so the universe’s purpose is achieved both through good and through evil. Thus, from the universe’s point of view, this issue is merely a question of the speed and type of change. Change, therefore, is unconscious but essential. We do not know why the universe needs change, but it possibly has to do with the fact that it is constantly expanding in a given direction. The direction in which it is moving is a mystery that we have so far been unable to unravel.
If we look at it from the perspective of life in general, human behaviour also makes no difference whatsoever. Regardless of human activity, nature always reacts according to the law of compensation. Imagine an extreme case of human behaviour, for example, a total nuclear war in which all humanity perish. Most animals would also become extinct.
However, for all crawling creatures, this catastrophe could usher in a new paradise, one where most of their predators had disappeared. Much the same thing happened to our predecessor mammal species when the dinosaurs became extinct. In time, these crawling creatures could probably grow in size and will certainly proliferate and evolve, giving birth to a new evolutionary saga. In a few millions of years, a period of time equivalent to a grain of sand in the universe’s scale, a new dominant race would come to rule the world, probably the heirs of cockroaches or mice. These successors could probably evolve to become smarter and give rise to a new type of civilization.
Therefore, there is no natural or basic rule that promotes the distinction between good and evil. In fact, we must realise that this distinction is a human invention. It results from the need for social organisation.
An important social concept
The fact that this concept is a human invention does not mean we should dismiss the principle altogether. On the contrary, it gives us added motivation to fight to change our societies, taking advantage of the fact that good and evil are powerful, deeply-rooted concepts that everyone has learned since childhood. When in doubt, the best way to distinguish between good and evil is to apply the ancient Golden Rule, described in a previous chapter.
This concept is sometimes incorrectly used by a few
However, this principle should not be imposed as a general rule. It should only be applied by each person of his or her own free will when it feels like the right thing to do. Although the principle of distinction between good and evil has played an extremely positive role, the truth is that there have also been a few negative implications, such as the imposition of standards of behaviour.
These standards of behaviour, traditions, institutions and all social organisation are fictional, but have always been used by the powerful to help keep them in power and maintain the status quo. This is why so many individuals rebel against these imposed standards, because their intuition tells them that they are participating in something unseemly, unnatural and not in their best interests.
In other words, in any given era the concepts of good and evil change somewhat. They are to some extent subjective in nature, as they are issued from above according to tradition and example, depending on the existing framework, politics, culture, religion, etc.
Thus, the conclusion that should be drawn is that the concepts of good and evil most appropriate to each society, are those that foster collective well-being. This rarely happens because societies evolve at a faster pace than the pace of their beliefs and rules, and the problem is aggravated by the fact that leaders are often faced with an internal conflict when they are forced to choose between the solutions that they know are best for society (the common good), and the options that best serve their own interests.
Distinguishing is not enough, as people must act accordingly - our nature
It is not enough for everyone to know the difference between right and wrong. People must act accordingly. People often know that what they are doing is wrong, but they still persist in doing it. Their reasons are always personal, though one may try to understand these types of decisions on a social level.
Our species has certain traits in common with our ancestors, one of them being that people are continuously subjected to and assaulted by frustrations, unwanted obligations and annoying constraints. From childhood, these limitations have contributed to changing our character and have made us less tolerant and patient with others. The anger felt against others is a result of the sadness experienced when our own limitations and the difficulty involved in achieving our goals are realised.
This does not necessarily imply that human beings are bad. What happens is that people are endowed with an extremely adaptable nature that continually adjusts to the contingencies of our environment. As mentioned in a previous chapter, human beings will become much better or much worse, depending on what behaviours and characteristics help them best adjust to their environment. It is important, therefore, to create an environment that takes this concept into account. Typically, human beings tend to behave well towards members of their own tribe and aggressively toward individuals from other tribes, although this may not be always the case due to the complexity and individuality of our nature.
Why do people sometimes choose evil?
The major obstacle to greater harmony is our tendency to see other human beings as not belonging to our tribe. People (Humans), therefore, tend to consider them as enemies rather than friends. This is the great misfortune of our times and stems from the type of society one lives in along with our urban lifestyle that brings together crowds of people who have little in common, whose members hate each other or, in the best case scenario, who simply ignore one another.
Furthermore, as all humans are mortal, our time to evolve is limited, causing us to view the environment that surrounds us in a very superficial way. People tend not to put effort into their own personal evolution for the same reason - knowing that our efforts are futile, as our time on earth will quickly run out.
It is, therefore, not difficult to understand why the overwhelming majority of our co-citizens prefer to pursue short-term, ephemeral gratification, which acts as mere a sedative. In other words, one of the consequences of being mortal is precisely the fact that our degree of perfectionism tends to be lower. The same thing happens to our desire to constantly learn new things and to continuously understand new realities. Instead, people prefer to leave behind tangible markers of their momentary passage through life.
The system must be suited to individuals’ characteristics
All of these concepts help us understand what Ergonocracy defends: that it should be the system that adapts to the individual and not the reverse, i.e. political, social, judicial and economic systems must be conceived that are in tune with the characteristics displayed by human beings. These systems should meet individual needs and respect their choices and idiosyncrasies.
Of course, these changes in the system will not be enough. Many things will have to change, at all levels, in order for people to overwhelmingly choose good over evil. For example, students will need to be taught basic techniques of self-control in an effort to gain control over their emotions and to be assertive in their relations with others. Furthermore, people should be motivated to try to achieve their goals and to have the courage to pursue their dreams.
The Ergonocracy Judicial Model proposes the separation between criminal courts and civil courts along with the introduction of mechanisms designed to carry out justice in a speedier and more efficient manner. Also presented are new strategies for the punishment and treatment of convicted felons with a view to maximising successful rehabilitation.
How the Ergonocracy Judicial Model generically works
All cases will be tried in courts based on two criteria, which apply to both civil and criminal cases:
All courts should be equipped with a set of cameras to automatically record all trials and simultaneously transmit these images over the internet so that every citizen can follow the trial through the Community Web Portal if they so desire.
Live broadcasts of court hearings should provide an additional deterrent by showing that crimes were being actually punished and, therefore, that justice is effective.
To manage each court, the respective Sub-Concessionary Company will have a specific budget of costs and revenue.
Revenue should arise from the Global Community and also from fines and court costs that each complainant will have to pay.
Certain measures aimed at encouraging productivity could be implemented. For example, for every three currency units that the court saved below budget, the Sub-Concessionary could earn an extra currency unit as a bonus.
These amounts could contribute to the Sub-Concessionary's own revenue and, logically, to its own profits, which should be divided monthly by all court members according to their shares.
Ergonocracy models aim to simplify and speed up all processes by setting a maximum time period for the beginning of the trial.
Form of concessions
In most representative democracies, the division of executive, legislative and judiciary powers is always of crucial importance. In some democracies, as in the US, judges are also voted in by citizens.
However, it is undeniable that the function of a judge is eminently technical and requires long, complex and expensive training. The process of evaluating a judge’s capacities should therefore be carried out at an early stage in the aspiring individual’s career, perhaps immediately after he has graduated from law school. This evaluation should be done through testing and practical simulations in order to assess such characteristics as: leadership attributes, ability to work under pressure, analytical skills and an understanding of human sociability.
Those who pass the aforementioned tests should be allowed to participate as members in a Concessionary Company of Judges and could begin their activity in a court of law.
The process of allocating these teams of Concessionary Company judges to fill vacancies in each court will follow, more or less, the usual process defined for each Public Function. However, there should be one main difference, as this will be considered an extended concession and last twenty years rather than the usual five.
The activities of these companies will be subjected to tighter surveillance and a higher level of vigilance than that required for other types of Concessionary Companies. It could entail the establishing of an automatic, compulsory web registration process where errors committed by judges, citizens’ complaints and appeals will be registered.
Every five years a public evaluation process will be held, in which each team should be confronted with these figures and be subjected to an investigation if the figures were much above average.
In the event that the investigations discovered any instances of malpractice, the consequences could include the cancellation of the public concession contract, or alternatively, the expulsion of the offending judges from that Concessionary Company.
Appeals
There should only be one court of appeal, whose decision should always be binding.
An appeal for a retrial will only be admissible in two situations:
Regarding in detail Case B), in the event of an appeal, if the court of appeal had doubts about the court’s performance, the video recording of the first trial could be reviewed. If the court of appeal had difficulty interpreting any previous situation, it may require the first group of judges to explain their understanding of the laws applied or the proof presented.
Should this court discover any malpractice, the first group of judges may have to submit to a formal investigation in order to determine if punishment was justified. Alternately, the court of appeal could require the first group of judges to be present throughout the whole retrial process.
If the court of appeal finds no evidence of negligence, incompetence or bad faith on the part of the judges, these appeal court judges will automatically have to sentence the claimants who initiated the appeal to a punishment equal to a thirty percent increase in the initial sentence as well as a thirty percent increase in any fines issued, depending on the case in question.
Before they formally requested an appeal, all complainants will have to be officially notified of the potential increases in punishment. In this way, the number of unproductive retrials should drop considerably.
Another important mission of the courts of appeal will be to accompany and control all initial court trials. They should use the Community Web Portal to follow certain pre-selected cases, drawn by chance, in such a way that the judges of these courts should not realise that they were being scrutinised. Controlling entities could use the same resources if they so desired.
Appeal courts should also conduct monitoring activities in other types of circumstances. For example, when more than one litigant or lawyer complains about certain judges, the courts of appeal should try to examine the behaviour of these judges to ascertain if there were any problems with his or her competence.
These kinds of procedures should have the following advantages:
If the litigants appeal, appeal court judges should already be aware of all details and be able to answer more quickly.
Types of courts
As mentioned, there are two completely different types of courts:
Next, each of these types of courts will be explained:
Civil courts
Civil courts will judge cases relating to disputes between two or more citizens, among companies or between companies and citizens102. Each party will be responsible for providing and paying the expenses of his or her own lawyer.
In each civil court trial, there should only be one judge.
Each court will be headed by one or more judicial Sub-Concessionary Companies, according to the size of the area it served. Teams of judges specialising in the above described types of processes will be formed, with these specialisations as well as geographical criteria applied at the moment of allocation of each case.
Criminal courts
Criminal courts will obviously deal with cases in which a citizen or a group of citizens are accused of a crime. To manage each court, the respective managing Sub-Concessionary Company should have a specific budget that detailed costs and revenue. Revenue will be provided by Global Community financing and also from the fines that convicted felons will have to pay as part of their punishment. However, these judges could not issue inflated fines, as all amounts should be rigorously stipulated to fall within minimum and maximum ranges set according to the situations in question. The financial situation of the felon should also be taken into account. Furthermore, periodic controls should be conducted by the Controlling Entities in charge of this and other issues.
Deadlines for intervention by criminal courts
In certain specific cases, particularly where criminals were caught red-handed, the trial will have to occur immediately after the felon’s arrest. Among many advantages, this will ensure that events should still be fresh in witnesses’ minds, making it less likely that someone will be unable to recall a given fact.
For more complicated cases, or if criminal laboratory testing were necessary, the maximum period for the beginning of the trial should vary according to the technical limitations of the tests to be performed and to the constraints of the investigation itself. However, this time should not exceed a maximum period of between three and five weeks after suspects are formally charged.
This is aided by the fact that according to Ergonocracy models, all laws are reduced to their essence. Also, a wide range of technical tools and investigative resources should be made available.
Composition of the Criminal Court
Therefore, regardless of its size, each court will need to be managed by a Sub-concessionary Company. For a small sized court, this Sub-concessionary Company should need to contain at least thirteen members, including the following:
Each team of judges could be composed of:
The court manager should take care of all general support, organisational tasks, outsourcing services, the management of the court, etc.
Functioning of the Criminal Court
The functions of each judge are as follows:
One of this model’s great innovations is the partnership between the judge-investigator and the investigating police. The idea is that the judge-investigator should play a dual role, i.e. he or she is simultaneously a policeman and a prosecutor. This way, the judge-investigator should participate in each police criminal investigation team, which should allow him to participate throughout the investigative process. This will allow him or her to decide at any point along the way whether or not to proceed with the investigation. If this judge-investigator decides to do so, he or she will then have to monitor the investigative process, gather all evidence and present it to the judge-president, who will take the trial forward from that point on.
This concept of teamwork between judge-investigator and police detective is an important factor in reducing the response time of criminal courts. In this way, both parties are involved: the world of investigation and the world of justice.
Any of these judges will be entitled to interrogate witnesses and take any initiatives that they find necessary, including the possibility of requesting that certain aspects of the crime be briefly re-investigated. This is an easy process, as they have someone on their team who is also an investigating officer: the Judge-Investigator.
At the end of the hearing the decision and the sentence will be determined by a simple majority. Of course, in practice, the Judge-President will be the one who make the final decision, although judges should always vote as they see fit.
Neither the Judge-Investigator nor the Judge-Attorney will have any direct premiums (bonuses) pegged to the number of convictions they effected. In this way, they will have nothing to gain by deciding one way or the other.
The purpose of a trial in progress is to arrive at a fair verdict as quickly as possible. Let us not forget that all laws should have to be available for public examination and that laws should be fewer in number and easier to interpret.
The veracity of each piece of evidence should then be disc