We always talk about "equality before the law," but it's time to start asking what role an individual's culture should play in our understanding of justice.
Great article, Seth. Thanks!! Thanks to you I have just corrected a misunderstanding I had: I always thought that Steiner proposed that the alleged criminal may choose (as you mentioned, from an elected diversity of judges from different cultures) who is the one he trust the most, so to receive a verdict from... Now I see I was wrong and I guess that this idea could be nice but also contain different problems down the road...
If I understand you correctly, then I think that you did have it right originally. Steiner is saying that everyone should be able to choose their own judge in case they break the law, so it is the alleged criminal he's talking about.
Why he focuses on the offender (the defendant) and not the victim (the plaintiff) has taken me a little while to wrap my head around, but my main thought is what I expressed in the second footnote: to heal such an act requires real insight on behalf of the judge into the reasons why the act was committed in the first place, which means it requires insight into the inner life of the offender. The victim, of course, should in no way be neglected and the wound that they've endured needs to be at the center of the whole process, but the wound did not emanate from them, it came from the action of the offender and that's where the judge has to look to find it's cure.
That's my understanding anyways. I'll post the two quotes that I mentioned in the comments section and if you have any other ideas about them let me know.
"Those who control the cultural sphere will be called upon at the same time to appoint the judges; and every human being will be entitled and able to elect from time to time his own judge, should he find himself accused of an offence against civil or penal law. Thus the accused will be able, out of actual specific conditions, to appoint his own judge, and the judge, who will be no bureaucratic lawyer, but a man chosen out of the cultural sphere, through the circumstances in which he is placed in the social environment will be able out of his environment to determine what judgment he must form of the man whom he is to try. It will be important that no judge shall be nominated for political reasons. The reasons for his nomination will be like those which determine the nomination of the best teacher to a particular post. Becoming a judge will be something like becoming a teacher or an educator. Of course, in this way the judicial finding will differ from that laid down by the law which arises from a democratic foundation. By the example of penal law already cited, we see how the personal disposition of the individual human being is outside the sphere of democracy and can only be judged in an individual way. The framing of laws is eminently a social matter. The moment we apply to a judge it is probably because we are concerned, either in a super-social or an anti-social matter, in a matter which has fallen out of the social life. All individual interests are of this nature. Such cases fall under the administrative branches of the cultural body. The decisions of justice grow beyond and above the limits of democracy."
And here's the quote from Towards Social Renewal:
"One of the effects through which the triformation of the social organism will prove itself to be based on the essential nature of human society is the severance of judicial activities from state institutions. It will be incumbent on the latter to establish the rights between persons or groups of persons. Judicial decisions however, will depend upon facilities formed by the spirit organization [ed: I believe this is "geistesleben" which just means the life of the mind or spirit and is therefore synonymous with culture]. This judicial decision making is, to a large extent, dependent on the judge's ability to perceive and understand the defendant's situation. Such perception and understanding will be present if the confidence which men feel towards the facilities of the [cultural] organization is extended to include the courts. The [cultural] organization might nominate judges from the various cultural professions. After a certain length of time they would return to their own professions. Within certain limits, every person would then be able to select the nominee, for a period of five or ten years, in whom he has sufficient confidence to accept his verdict in a civil or criminal case, should one arise. To make such a selection meaningful, there would have to be enough judges available in the vicinity of each person's place of residence. A plaintiff would always be obliged to direct himself to a competent judge in the respondent's vicinity.
"Just consider the importance such an arrangement would have had in the Austro-Hungarian districts. The members of each nationality in mixed-language districts could have chosen judges from their own people. Whoever is familiar with the Austrian situation will recognize what a compensatory effect such an arrangement could have had in the life of those peoples. Aside from the nationality question, there are other areas in which such arrangements can contribute to sound development. Officials selected by the spiritual organization's administration will assist the judges and courts with technical points of law, but will themselves not hold decision-making authority. Appeal-courts will also be formed by this administration. An essential characteristic of such an arrangement is that a judge, because of his life outside his judgeship — which he can only hold for a limited period — can be familiar with the sensibilities and environment of the defendant. The healthy social organism will everywhere attract social understanding to its institutions, and judicial activities will be no exception. The execution of sentences is the responsibility of the rights-state.
"It is not possible to enter into a description of the arrangements which would become necessary in other areas of life as the result of implementing these suggestions. Such a description would obviously require an almost unlimited amount of space."
Thanks for sharing this! It seems that in 'The Social Future' you can understand things as I got them originally, but in 'Towards..' you can understand them as I corrected myself :), wouldn't you say? Anyways, if I understand correctly, in your article you didn't mention the alleged criminal's choice of judge - post accusation, right?
Regarding why Steiner focuses on the offender and not the victim, I think its because his focus is on shifting the way we see things in the context of judges and criminals to a different, development or educational perspective. The emphasis here being the shifting from something that is regarded as an abstract, technical process to a unique and intimate one. With the victim, on the other hand, no shift has to take place, because as things are today, its already quite clear that they should be treated in the frame of what we call the spiritual realm, with focus on individual-unique conditions for development or healing. So, to me, when Steiner addressed this matter the context was one of explaining the three spheres and an area in society where they are confused. Were the context the judging system as such, I believe he wouldn't neglect the victim side of it.
It is a pleasure to read about the peer judges endeavour!
In Denmark, we basically have educated judges who follow the old Roman jurisdiction. But there are also juries comprised of lay people from many walks of life. Presently, though, we aren’t allowed to choose our own judge or jury.
Glad you enjoyed it, David. Hope you're well and that things are remaining cool-headed and peaceful in Taiwan (I know international relations concerning the island have been a bit tense as of late). Sending love.
Hey Patricia - thanks so much for bringing up this point, I think it's an important one. Our economic circumstances are certainly a big part of who we are and why we act as we do, they are a big part of our identity (and, in that sense, our cultural make-up), and of course that's the case for everyone, whether rich or poor.
I'm not entirely sure how you're seeing the influence of wealth, but I think it's an interesting question of how it can also influence a person to commit crimes. We often see wealth as a positive thing in a person's life, but is it really just an advantage or does it also have significant downsides? I've definitely known people where I felt like their wealth wasn't helping them be in the world in a healthy way, that it was in some way a quite toxic influence. It can definitely twist people.
I would say that most people know deep down that wealth, power, and fame (the main aspirations our society pursues) are hollow, that they don't give a life true joy or meaning. Actually acquiring wealth (or power or fame) can create a kind of spiritual vacuum for people that I think can be quite devastating. One recent example of this - a documentary I started watching the other day (but haven't yet finished) - was called "Generation Wealth." It was pretty hard to watch at times (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyfC1AVhfb8&ab_channel=AmazonStudios).
Great article, Seth. Thanks!! Thanks to you I have just corrected a misunderstanding I had: I always thought that Steiner proposed that the alleged criminal may choose (as you mentioned, from an elected diversity of judges from different cultures) who is the one he trust the most, so to receive a verdict from... Now I see I was wrong and I guess that this idea could be nice but also contain different problems down the road...
Hey Omri,
If I understand you correctly, then I think that you did have it right originally. Steiner is saying that everyone should be able to choose their own judge in case they break the law, so it is the alleged criminal he's talking about.
Why he focuses on the offender (the defendant) and not the victim (the plaintiff) has taken me a little while to wrap my head around, but my main thought is what I expressed in the second footnote: to heal such an act requires real insight on behalf of the judge into the reasons why the act was committed in the first place, which means it requires insight into the inner life of the offender. The victim, of course, should in no way be neglected and the wound that they've endured needs to be at the center of the whole process, but the wound did not emanate from them, it came from the action of the offender and that's where the judge has to look to find it's cure.
That's my understanding anyways. I'll post the two quotes that I mentioned in the comments section and if you have any other ideas about them let me know.
Here's the quote from The Social Future:
"Those who control the cultural sphere will be called upon at the same time to appoint the judges; and every human being will be entitled and able to elect from time to time his own judge, should he find himself accused of an offence against civil or penal law. Thus the accused will be able, out of actual specific conditions, to appoint his own judge, and the judge, who will be no bureaucratic lawyer, but a man chosen out of the cultural sphere, through the circumstances in which he is placed in the social environment will be able out of his environment to determine what judgment he must form of the man whom he is to try. It will be important that no judge shall be nominated for political reasons. The reasons for his nomination will be like those which determine the nomination of the best teacher to a particular post. Becoming a judge will be something like becoming a teacher or an educator. Of course, in this way the judicial finding will differ from that laid down by the law which arises from a democratic foundation. By the example of penal law already cited, we see how the personal disposition of the individual human being is outside the sphere of democracy and can only be judged in an individual way. The framing of laws is eminently a social matter. The moment we apply to a judge it is probably because we are concerned, either in a super-social or an anti-social matter, in a matter which has fallen out of the social life. All individual interests are of this nature. Such cases fall under the administrative branches of the cultural body. The decisions of justice grow beyond and above the limits of democracy."
And here's the quote from Towards Social Renewal:
"One of the effects through which the triformation of the social organism will prove itself to be based on the essential nature of human society is the severance of judicial activities from state institutions. It will be incumbent on the latter to establish the rights between persons or groups of persons. Judicial decisions however, will depend upon facilities formed by the spirit organization [ed: I believe this is "geistesleben" which just means the life of the mind or spirit and is therefore synonymous with culture]. This judicial decision making is, to a large extent, dependent on the judge's ability to perceive and understand the defendant's situation. Such perception and understanding will be present if the confidence which men feel towards the facilities of the [cultural] organization is extended to include the courts. The [cultural] organization might nominate judges from the various cultural professions. After a certain length of time they would return to their own professions. Within certain limits, every person would then be able to select the nominee, for a period of five or ten years, in whom he has sufficient confidence to accept his verdict in a civil or criminal case, should one arise. To make such a selection meaningful, there would have to be enough judges available in the vicinity of each person's place of residence. A plaintiff would always be obliged to direct himself to a competent judge in the respondent's vicinity.
"Just consider the importance such an arrangement would have had in the Austro-Hungarian districts. The members of each nationality in mixed-language districts could have chosen judges from their own people. Whoever is familiar with the Austrian situation will recognize what a compensatory effect such an arrangement could have had in the life of those peoples. Aside from the nationality question, there are other areas in which such arrangements can contribute to sound development. Officials selected by the spiritual organization's administration will assist the judges and courts with technical points of law, but will themselves not hold decision-making authority. Appeal-courts will also be formed by this administration. An essential characteristic of such an arrangement is that a judge, because of his life outside his judgeship — which he can only hold for a limited period — can be familiar with the sensibilities and environment of the defendant. The healthy social organism will everywhere attract social understanding to its institutions, and judicial activities will be no exception. The execution of sentences is the responsibility of the rights-state.
"It is not possible to enter into a description of the arrangements which would become necessary in other areas of life as the result of implementing these suggestions. Such a description would obviously require an almost unlimited amount of space."
Thanks for sharing this! It seems that in 'The Social Future' you can understand things as I got them originally, but in 'Towards..' you can understand them as I corrected myself :), wouldn't you say? Anyways, if I understand correctly, in your article you didn't mention the alleged criminal's choice of judge - post accusation, right?
Regarding why Steiner focuses on the offender and not the victim, I think its because his focus is on shifting the way we see things in the context of judges and criminals to a different, development or educational perspective. The emphasis here being the shifting from something that is regarded as an abstract, technical process to a unique and intimate one. With the victim, on the other hand, no shift has to take place, because as things are today, its already quite clear that they should be treated in the frame of what we call the spiritual realm, with focus on individual-unique conditions for development or healing. So, to me, when Steiner addressed this matter the context was one of explaining the three spheres and an area in society where they are confused. Were the context the judging system as such, I believe he wouldn't neglect the victim side of it.
It is a pleasure to read about the peer judges endeavour!
In Denmark, we basically have educated judges who follow the old Roman jurisdiction. But there are also juries comprised of lay people from many walks of life. Presently, though, we aren’t allowed to choose our own judge or jury.
Nice to hear how it’s done in different places. All the best!
Excellent - thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it, David. Hope you're well and that things are remaining cool-headed and peaceful in Taiwan (I know international relations concerning the island have been a bit tense as of late). Sending love.
Hey Patricia - thanks so much for bringing up this point, I think it's an important one. Our economic circumstances are certainly a big part of who we are and why we act as we do, they are a big part of our identity (and, in that sense, our cultural make-up), and of course that's the case for everyone, whether rich or poor.
I'm not entirely sure how you're seeing the influence of wealth, but I think it's an interesting question of how it can also influence a person to commit crimes. We often see wealth as a positive thing in a person's life, but is it really just an advantage or does it also have significant downsides? I've definitely known people where I felt like their wealth wasn't helping them be in the world in a healthy way, that it was in some way a quite toxic influence. It can definitely twist people.
I would say that most people know deep down that wealth, power, and fame (the main aspirations our society pursues) are hollow, that they don't give a life true joy or meaning. Actually acquiring wealth (or power or fame) can create a kind of spiritual vacuum for people that I think can be quite devastating. One recent example of this - a documentary I started watching the other day (but haven't yet finished) - was called "Generation Wealth." It was pretty hard to watch at times (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyfC1AVhfb8&ab_channel=AmazonStudios).
Thanks for your thoughts.
Fascinating post—thank you!
Hey Joan - really glad you enjoyed it, especially because of your connection to the topic with Crime and Punishment. Hope all's well - Seth