For several years, I've bandied about an econo-judicial system that involves punishment based purely on economics. The theory is that you blur the distinction between criminal and tort law, and radically change the way sentences are handed down and executed. Now, all sentences would ultimately involve fines. But the enforcement of the fines is somewhat unique.

For misdemeanors, the defendant, if found guilty, would be subject to the fine, but his/her freedom would not be otherwise impinged upon. Their wages may be subject to garnishment and liens may be levied against property, but the defendant is generally deemed not to be a major threat to society and is presumed to pay the fine of their own recognizance.

For felonies, the person is presumed dangerous. Then there are two options. One, the plaintiff "owns" the defendant like an indentured servant until the fine is paid. Two, the plaintiff "owns" the defendant, but the state manages him/her. The idea is that the felon will be restrained with GPS locators and something like a shock collar which the plaintiff will control. Perhaps the plaintiff will also have leg and/or arm chains if they are deemed dangerous. In either case, the felon will clearly have to perform labor to regain their freedom. Furthermore, the labor will be paid as debt-first, then living expenses. So each day, a certain labor quota must be met before the felon will receive food and lodging. If the felon goes on a hunger strike, he will have the option to starve himself to death. If he's just lazy, he will have to make up for the back quotas before he can earn his next meal.

This might sound like a rather draconian form of punishment, but the problem it aims to solve is that currently felons do not contribute meaningfully to their own existence, let alone society at large. They are not held responsible for their own sustenance, and they are a net drain on the economy. Furthermore, the theory is that if a felon is forced to face his/her victim on a daily basis, they will begin to understand the pain and suffering they inflicted. Of course, they could choose to verbally assault the plaintiff, but then the plaintiff could implement the "pain restraint" to silence the felon. There would be no parole, and only the plaintiffs themselves would be able to "write off" remaining debt that a felon is charged with. Felons would also be non-transferrable, except in the event that the plaintiff becomes incapacitated, in which the felon's "debt" would go to next of kin or revert to the state.

So how should punishments be determined? Well, they should have two components. They should have a fixed-value component, and a relative-value component. The fixed-value component would be a deterrent for those with little net worth and nothing to lose. The relative-value component would be a deterrent for those with a large net worth and a lot to lose. So, for instance, 3rd degree assault might carry a fine of $5000 + 1% of your saleable assets. For a poor person, $5000 might be an intimidating amount to repay, but the 1% of his/her assets might be a few dollars. For a wealthy businessman, $5000 might be sitting in his checking acount, but 1% of his saleable assets might be another $2k. It might not seem fair that the businessman has to pay more money, but if you consider that he also earns more, the system could be designed so that both convicts work about the same amount of time (or the businessman might just pay cash, but a lot more of it).

Now, for the safety of both the plaintiff and the felon, the plaintiff has to agree for the felon to be monitored at all times, which might include setting up video cameras throughout their house and wearing a portable camera, etc. The same would be true for state-controlled facilities. The way to avoid abuses like chain gangs is to simply make the operations completely transparent. Not only would there be cameras all over the prison complexes, but those cameras would be available to the public. This would ensure that prisons don't run abusive shops and that prisoners are actually working.

The final element of my justice system is the notion of fractional guilt. Sometimes we set people free because we are only 97% sure they are guilty, rather than 100%. Sometimes, we want to charge someone with a crime, but admit that the circumstances of the case prevent all of the evidence from being collected. In that case, jurors can vote "not guilty", "not sufficient evidence to decide", or "guilty at x% confidence". Essentially, "not guilty" just means "guilty at 0% confidence". To secure a conviction, all jurors would have to vote at least 67%, say. That's a supermajority. The final determination of guilt would be the average of the votes, and that would be used to reduce the sentence. This isn't quite the same as considering mitigating factors, because it's acknowledging that the judicial process must operate on imperfect knowledge, and it's hedging the bet that if the court is wrong, the punishment will be less wrong in proportion to the amount of remaining doubt. It isn't a perfect solution to wrongful conviction, but I see it as an incremental improvement. I also see it as a way to secure more convictions when juries are pretty sure someone is guilty, but not 99.999% sure.

The questions for debate are:

Do you think this kind of econo-judicial system is workable?

Do you think that it should be implemented?

1. Just from a practical standpoint, I see a lot of problems with such a system.

A fine for minor infractions of the law is OK, and this does indeed happen quite often. (Have you ever paid a traffic ticket?) You could make a case that many other non-violent crimes (assuming that there is any reason for them to be against the law in the first place) would be better dealt with by a fine system. So far, so good.

However, I don't think such a system could be applied to more serious crimes. How much value do we put on a rape or a murder? Assuming this was even possible (say the fine is set to a gigantic level like billions of dollars) than how is such a system significantly different from imprisonment? (The answer, of course, is the aspect of forced labor. This isn't any different, as far as I can see, of a sentence of "hard labor." I'll talk about the proposal to have the victim take control of the felon's labor a little later.)

As far as the fractional guilt system goes, this would seem to make the American trial system -- already very complex -- very messy. Do we throw out the appeal system? Even if there is new evidence? If we keep it, what happens if somebody goes from 98% guilty to only 69% guilty? This seems like a huge can of worms.

2. OK, enough with the practical aspects of this plan. Now let's look at the ethical aspects. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of having the felon's labor under the control of the victim. Isn't this an open invitation for the victim to take revenge? Won't the "pain restraint" get a lot of inappropriate use?

I also doubt that many dangerous felons will learn compassion for the victim, but will in fact be hardened in their hate and resentment. The current penal system does enough of that on its own, and doesn't need any help.

Do you think this kind of econo-judicial system is workable?
Yes. I do believe that slavery, if done humanely, can serve as a viable form of punishment. (It is another thing altogether to enslave someone who has done no crime.) This is especially true when your other alternatives are either killing the criminal, or giving them free room and board for life.

The relative portion of the fine system is especially important. Otherwise, we would have wealthy people committing crimes and just writting a check as if it were some kind of bill they had to pay and not really a punishment.

Do you think that it should be implemented?
I do not like the fractional guilt. If being wrongly convicted is the issue, then the mistake can be remedied with a payout from the government, who in turn would often get reimbursed by the correct convict. If the person was rightly convicted, but is able to raise enough doubt on the case to lower the guilt percentage, then he would be getting a discount on his punishment - as if mesmerizing the jury with obscure probabilites would be merit enough for reward!

Also, the part about placing the convict in the custody of the victim is wholly unnecesary. This opens up the door for abuse from the victim to the convict, or the mere subordinance could highten the convict's contempt for the victim. Besides, slave labor would be more productively utilized in the hands of those who have the facilities in place to profit from it.