Sober Thought Vice Ministry of Justice

The Vice Ministry of Justice is the branch of Sober Thought's Ministry of Community Wellbeing responsible for federal law, community courts and corrections.

Except for police, which is a provincial jurisdiction, it is the sharpest stick in the arsenal of social control. The guiding principle for all of these civil bodies and in Sober Thought's socio-political thinking is social defence. While it is similar to usual if somewhat amorphous concepts like justice, it is much more utilitarian in approach.

Social defence

How does one define the peculiar concept of social defence? The best place to start is with a comparison of more familiar and related concepts. For instance, a philosopher might ask if the capital punishment were permitted by natural law, a civil libertarian might ask if the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment, a law-and-order reactionary might ask if judicial vengeance could be made more painful and applied to a greater number of criminals, and a social reformer might ask if the noose prevented helpless prisoners from becoming nice. In contrast, social defenders might ask if carrying out executions resulted in a more peaceful society.

They are equally unimpressed with statistics proving that capital punishment has no general deterrent (it has none) and the large number of death row religious conversions (there are many). Their sole concern is how the death penalty would affect the stability and tranquility society as a whole, disregarding any specific effects whether to prisoners, victims, witnesses, law enforcers or judges.

They would consider, contrary to strict equality of the law, avoiding capital punishment for some crimes even if they resulted in death but applying it for some crimes even if they did not result in death. Consider hijackers or hostagetakers, many of whom want to die in a hail of bullets -- suicide by cop as it is known. They are unlikely to be deterred by the death penalty and perhaps are encouraged by it. In contrast, consider an attempted murder or intimidation punctuated by physical assault committed against a law enforcement or judicial officer does not result in death. Its perpetrators are likely people hardened against civil society with little prospect of successful reintegration so if the likelihood of judicial execution does not dissuade them beforehand its application afterwards is sure to result in a zero recidivism rate.

And to ease the consciences of civil libertarians and social reformers who secretly hold law-and-order reactionary beliefs, social defenders would make the death penalty more painfree. This is no salve for true supporters of civil rights or social change, since, by analogy, sexual assault which is more painfree is still sexual assault with all the serious implications as before.

Do not be misled into thinking that social reformers are anti-suspect or anti-criminal; they are decidedly not. The best social defence is a society in which people are treated fairly and seen to be treated fairly. One wrongful conviction or execution could result in much more civil strife than many wrongful acquittals. Therefore, social defenders strive to create a police and court system that is blind to race, religion, ethnic origin, sex and age (for adults). In short, they seek to enforce uniformly and with as much vigour as necessary the social contract upon all citizens and residents of Sober Thought.

This Rousseauesque contract is outlined in brief but ringing terms in the Sober Thought Charter, in longer but more obscure terms in the Sober Thought Criminal Code and in informal but generally accurate terms in the popular culture. Disputes among people, and between people and governments, can be resolved satisfactorily and peacefully through the courts. Any individual who or organisation which rejects this option of amicable conflict resolution has declared war on society, and should they expect society to defend itself to the fullest.

Law Chief Directorate

Civil law remains the purview of the individual provinces, so the ministry, vice ministry and chief directorate confine themselves to making federal law: criminal law, maritime law and constitutional law (including civil rights).

Those without legal training typically disparage lawyers, but this attitude is unwarranted in real life and even less so in Sober Thought. Law still requires clear thinking and clear writing for the generalities, while accounting for the unusual or unforeseen specifics. For those who would like an instructive yet humourous illustration of this, I suggest a screening of the Yes, Prime Minister episode "A Diplomatic Incident" concerning in part national sovereignty issues in the Chunnel.

Thankfully, in Sober Thought at least, the explicit doctrine of social defence helps clarify the issues which are sometimes muddled by often competing ethical, religious, political, social and humanitarian considerations. As thoughtful pragmatists, the appointed drafters and elected passers of Sober Thought law keep their eyes on the prize at all times.

Criminal Law Directorate

Criminal law is so extensive and important that it warrants its own article. Briefly, the approach to major crimes against the person is for very long prison sentences combined with generous parole provisions when warranted; major crimes against civil society similar sentences but often fewer parole opportunities; major corporate crimes the revision, suspension or revocation of the articles of incorporation; and minor crimes of all types shorter but rigorous prison sentences followed by close supervision in half-way houses and rapid reintegration into society.

Official pardons, which negate the need for people to disclose criminal convictions but do not erase records of that conviction, are often granted to minor criminals and sometimes to major criminals after roughly a decade or so of successful social integration. See the Criminal Court section for more details.

Maritime Law Directorate

Even when it seems solid, the law of the sea is always in flux because of the peculiar nature of the oceans. Water respects no political or jurisdictional boundaries; it goes where gravity and the forces of nature send it. Similarly, maritime engineering and naval weapons technology make more and more of the sea and seabed de facto under the control of nations (if not de jure), but this technology often advances at different rates in different countries.

As a result, the crazy quilt patchwork of international law, bilateral agreements, nautical custom and unilateral national declarations makes navigating (punny guy!) maritime law very difficult. That is where the experts come in, and make the unintelligible as intelligible as humanly possible.

Constitutional Law Directorate

As a federal state, Sober Thought is always trying to find the right balance between the centre and the extremities in its public institutions and national constitution. Constitutional amendments are submitted and assented to more frequently than in many long-lived RL constitutions, but often less severe, whether measured by the effort it took to pass them and the impact of their application.

As reasoned pragmatists, lawmakers are not nearly as fixated on the wording of any particular document -- even such a solemn and significant one as the constitution -- as they are with the impact of that document. Therefore, they will entertain more wordy or flowery preambles than even the most esoteric real life constitutions, but their meat-and-bones articles are much clearer and concise that most long-lasting (and hence stale-dated) RL national constitutions.

Issues that in other RL countries might be sent to a supreme court for a judicial opinion on a hypothetical case are sent here instead. The Constitutional Court hears only actual cases it decides to accept, not potential cases it has been forced to accept.

Chief Directorate of Courts

The administrator responsible for criminal, constitutional and admiralty courts throughout the country the Chief Director of Courts, sometimes unofficially called the Community courts to differentiate the federal and provincial courts. It is further subdivided into directorates the three branches listed above, plus the appeal court which for some purposes is a de facto supreme court.

Criminal Court

This is the court of first instance for trying charges made under the Sober Thought Criminal Code. It is nominally one bench -- all judges being qualified to sit anywhere in the country -- but for means of practical administration, it is divided into scores of numbered districts. Because these local branches all have "District" in their names, Criminal Courts are often but incorrectly termed District Courts.

Typically, a large (~2% of the national population) city will get its own district, a medium-sized (~1:2%) city and its environs a district among them, and a region with no city or only a small (~<2%) city a single district. For example, the whole of the Province of Potato Island (0.4%), the chartered city of Schweindorf and Greater Chapeauxdix are each separate judicial districts.

Like many RL courts, the Criminal Court is also the de jure bail court. However unlike many RL courts, it is also the de facto parole and pardons board. This unusual combination of roles tries to fix the common RL and NS problems of poor inter-agency communication, lack of judicial consistency, and people unfamiliar with cases making decisions about them. Of course, it also risks tunnel-vision communication, a foolish lack of judicial consistency (the hobgoblin of legal minds) and people too familiar with the original trial deciding the fates of criminals against whom they hold irrelevant grudges. However, the government of Sober Thought has decide that these risks are no worse than RL ad hoc and 'ad parteum (to coin a phrase and mangle a dead language) parole and pardons boards staffed by amateurs, burnouts, tokens and political hacks.

Unlike most RL places, probation does not exist as sentence. Its substitute is a nominal sentence (e.g., a day, weekend or week) followed by parole for a set period.

Constitutional Court

This court deals with relations among governments in Sober Thought, relations between a citizen or resident and government, and civil and human rights. Most obviously, provinces, municipalities or the federal government may seek judicial remedy for a perceived violation of inter-governmental contracts or the constitution.

For instance, a province may object to interference with the operation of their highways by the federal Ministry of Community Connections on the grounds that land transportation is a provincial matter and that the federal government has merely delegated or coordinating authority in this area. Or the federal government may sue a provincial government for breach of contract concerning federal obligations which by agreement were supposed to be met by a province.

When citizens or residents feel that any level of government has wronged them, they may sue for redress in the Constitutional Court. In most RL countries, governments must first assent to their own prosecution, but not so in Sober Thought. However, the Charter and political culture imposes obligations as well as rights, so would-be litigants have both the right to sue for well-founded or well-intentioned complaints and an obligation not to sue for frivilous or vexatious ones. On balance, the system works well with governments being kept honest by the possibility of a lawsuit and individuals being kept honest by the ability of the court to ignore a pointless one.

Human rights and civil liberties are taken very seriously in Sober Thought, and the Sober Thought Charter is near and dear to the hearts of its citizens and prospective citizens. We believe that civil rights are the basis upon which a society is built. Residents and Sober Thought political parties may bicker or quibble about political, economic or social rights -- and we do! -- but they mean nothing if the fundamental rights to life and liberty are not upheld.

How can a social liberals enfranchise twelve year olds by act of legislature without freedom of thought and association? How can a economic liberals dismantle by legislation the fabric of the state without freedom from government tyranny? How can a linguistic minority prevent a provincial parochialist from compelling businesses to use only (rather than at least) an official language?

Maritime Court

This court is sometimes archaically or inaccurately described as the Admiralty Court, the Prize Court or Law of the Sea Court. It is responsible for sorting out in specifics the rights and responsibilities of parties on the high seas, coastal waters, riparian waterways and inland seas of Sober Thought. It collaborates closely with the Directorate of Maritime Law and the Director of United Nations Relations at the Ministry of Community Defence's Vice Ministry of Diplomacy.

Violations of fishing and environmental regulations used to take up much of the court's time, until the passage of several key United Nations resolutions. Currently, the disposition of derelict merchant ships and the valuables in sunken vessels consume most of the court's time. Occasionally, foreign flagged merchant vessels from outside the International Democratic Union dock in Sober Thought's ports and crew members raise issues of ill-treatment which are mainly resolved in the Criminal Court or even the Constitutional Court (for human rights issues) rather than here as a casual observer might expect.

This is because the inside of a watercraft (aircraft or spacecraft, for that matter) is considered the sovereign territory of the country in which it is registered. However, anything jettisoned over the side or exuded from above is not, which is why pollution and marine animal conservation violations are prosecuted. Of course, a sovereign state like Sober Thought may exclude a craft for any reason, stated or unstated, from its national waters, national territory and national airspace. However, it may not enter the interior of the craft unless it violates a prohibition or removal order.

As soon as a craft docks, though, anybody or anything that exits is subject to Sober Thought's law. So in practice, racial segregation and corporal punishment (both strictly banned here) could be maintained and administered aboard, but two metres away on the quayside the same activities become legally actionable. Unjust countries which see the human rights and civil liberties of Sober Thought as a threat try to use this distinction to maintain their authoritarian ways by keeping crews aboard during layovers.

However, many soon discover that a cooped up crew in port which is not permitted to stretch its legs and see the sights becomes a very restless crew, and shipjumping (whether sea, air or space) is common in such conditions. Once the jumpers are ashore, they are protected by Sober Thought human rights law and cannot be removed except through normal extradition by the country of origin or of ship registry, or by expulsion by Sober Thought.

Community Appeal Court

This court hears appeals of the decisions of all other federal courts, with one minor exception: Constitutional Court decisions can be overridden by concurrent agreement of the Community Conscience, House of the Federation and the House of the Provinces. When no appeal to the joint executive and legislative branches is successful or attempted, the Community Appeal Court may rule in the case.

The CAC provides the sober second thought for other judges. It examines each case with fresh eyes untainted by the prior prosecution of the case. Reassuringly, it overturns comparatively few rulings, split approximately evenly among more stringent and more lenient resolutions imposed on the appealing party. Unlike other RL courts, the concept of rights and obligations applies to convicts and appellants as well, so an ill-founded appeal may worsen or better the current circumstances of those appearing before the court.

Chief Directorate of Criminals

Persons convicted of a crime are held in the custody of the Chief Directorate of Criminals. This rather direct and, some might say, backward thinking agency is called that for several reasons which all converge on the concept of social defence. In RL, imprisonment was typically incidental to another punishment, such as execution, transportation (hello, Australia!) or payment of bloodmoney (as practiced according to sharia law, among others).

Terminology considerations

Only in modern times was deprivation of freedom of movement itself seen as a punishment. During this period, buildings erected to house prisoners were (not unnaturally) called prisons. This distinction is maintained in Sober Thought: jails detain criminal suspects or very short-term criminal convicts, while prisons detain convicts only. News outlets which fail to distinguish these two may find themselves on the losing side of a libel lawsuit in many provinces.

Optimists and social reformers of the RL 19th century visited these prisons and were shocked by the harsh conditions they saw there. They saw prison as a chance to reform a wayward person rather than to punish a hardened criminal. Of course their case was bolstered by fact that concrete economic crimes of low monetary value (like shoplifting a loaf of bread and shaving the edges off precious metal coins) carried harsh sentences while what are now considered abstract economic crimes of high monetary value (like embezzlement and stock fraud) were either not crimes or crimes rarely prosecuted. Under their influence, prisons became penitentiaries -- places where people go to think. Social defence rejects this approach.

Even as the worst abuses in penitentiaries and the criminal code were being smoothed out, 20th century reformers built upon their predecessors' optimism and insisted that correction under the direction of the wardens (an interesting use of the word) was now the goal. So penitentiaries were passe, and correctional facilities, correctional institutions and corrections centres were in. Euphemistic retronyms were also applied to jails, which became detention centres and justice centres -- sounding like close relatives of community centres and recreational centres. Social defence dictates that while correction or rehabilitation may be the happy byproduct of prison, it is neither its primary goal nor does it eliminate the need for prisons in the earliest sense.

Terminology has also come under the withering fire of conservatives and reactionaries who would like to see more summary trials, unappealable sentences and victims' rights. They object strenuously to the focus on "criminals" in the chief directorate's name and ask why the focus is not on the objects of the criminals' transgressions. Social defence responds by saying that it is not the victims who are being arrested, charged, convicted, imprisoned, paroled and pardoned, it is the criminals. Why would one want to be associated with such degrading activities which have nothing to do with happening to be victimised?

Even when the word is restricted to the people (criminals) rather than the places or processes they endure (prisons, bail, parole, etc.), some people object. Sociologists, for instance, resist putting normative labels like "criminal" and prefer such supposedly neutral or scientific terms like "inmate" (as if they are chummy), "person in conflict with the law" (as if crime were a scholarly debate between people and inanimate objects), "transgressor" (as if using a synonym thereby lessening the social stigma makes the crime less real) or "deviant" (as if criminal behaviour were like tobacco chewing or cheating on your spouse). Social defence says sugar coating a situation is unlikely to promote internal tranquility, any more than calling foreign soldiers trying to kill members of the Community Defence Forces abroad "guerrillas," "enemy combattants," "insurgents" or "indigenous forces" is unlikely to promote external tranquility.

So that is why the Chief Directorate of Criminals operates prisons.

Non-Prison Directorate

This is similar in concept to RL alternative dispute mechanisms, court diversion projects, mandatory mediation, compulsory arbitration, john schools, anger management programmes, community service, house arrest or aboriginal justice initiatives.

Its somewhat awkward title keeps the focus on the fact that this is the alternative to prison, and if people want to complain about their non-custodial sentences they can always go to prison instead. This in fact how repeat offenders or convicts who fail to fulfill all the conditions of their alternative sentences are dealt with.

Both in RL and ST, the goal of these programmes and organisations is to divert minor disputes from the more expensive and time-consuming Criminal Courts. Sentences always require an acceptable apology -- whether to the victim, the class of people victimised or to the public at large -- because a convict who does not accept responsibility, cannot acknowledge that responsibility to others or both belongs in prison rather than here. Additionally, sentences may require the payment of fines, restitution, labour or goods, and restrictions on movement, employment or communication.

Prison Directorate

After conviction on criminal charges, people are rated by this agency according to the likelihood of their escape. Those classed as most likely to escape -- often but not invariably the same prisoners classed mostly likely to be incarcerated for the longest times -- are sent to maximum security prisons and prison colonies far from heavily settled areas. Within these places are additional mini-prisons, whether isolation units in prisons or closed units in prison colonies. The purpose is to give the prison officials a chance to place prisoners within the finest gradations possible to that they are held appropriately, and concurrently encourage prisoners to behave so they may gain extra liberties in lower classifications.

There are slightly more medium security prisons which are not quite as isolated as the maximum counterparts. The regimen is less harsh, the guard-to-prisoner ratio higher, the opportunities for productive work greater and contact with the outside world easier. For prisoners who earned their way here from max, these small mercies are savoured, while for prisoners who arrive here after initial classification or after behaving poorly in minimum security, the atmosphere seems oppressive. This diversity in backgrounds is helpful, since ex-maxes serve as walking reminders to meds that it could be worse and to ex-mins that movement down as well as up is possible.

Medium security prisons are by far the most numerous prisons, and they are built in or near most cities of at least 2% national population and some smaller regional service centre. This proximity facilitates family visitation, day passes and other socially integrative measures that the prison guards may think fit. Although the buildings may be spartan by most standards, they lack fences, barbed wire, guard towers and other outward indications of a prison. The strongest fence is created in the mind, and most mins realise that to go on the lam probably means being sent up to medium or even more likely maximum security prisons. While some right-wingers grumble about Club Fed and such, the broad consensus of the moderate right, centre and whole of the left is that these prisons fulfill their functions efficiently, cheaply and safely.

Parole Directorate

Closely related to the Prison Directorate, this arm of the vice ministry is charge with the supervision of criminals who are not held in closed custody. The origin of the word "parole" is to give one's word and be on good behaviour. Sober Thought takes this origin to heart in light of social defence, and is not reluctant to return parolees -- even decades long paroles -- to closed custody for breaking their word or ceasing to be on good behaviour.

However, in many ways parole is extremely generous. It is often combined with opportunities for learning or working, and its half-way houses are available to all paroles if they want, so it also serves as a sort of social services net. This serves several functions, among them making it easier for the directorate to keep tabs on parolees, encouraging parolees to see the process as the start of social integration rather than the continuation of punishment, and giving those people who are easily led an opportunity for positive reinforcement and useful structure in their lives. Like the prison planet of Aliens 3, inmates who are eligible to leave may elect to remain in the tough love structured freedom of half-way houses.

Most parolees, however want to more fully reintegrate and most courts agree to this course of action. Murderers, who may have served a decade or more in closed custody and several years in a half-way house, are on parole until they die. Reporting periods for parolees are set by judicial officials, and can range from daily or weekly to recently parolled, higher risk criminals to annually for a truly rehabilitated murderer who has not been in prison for decades.

Judicial officials also set movement, employment and contact restrictions for paroles. These are non-negotiable, and paroles who try to do so or break them have their parole revoked immediately and are sent back to prison. Barracks lawyers quickly learn the folly of their ways when dealing with the Directorate of Parole. Movement restrictions might include the buildings, municipalities, times of day or means of transport a parole is permitted. Parole officers might prohibit work with children, handling explosives or dispensing money. Judges might ban contact with victims, witnesses, other convicts or members of particular groups.