When a mosquito bites you, there is no legal punishment for it, is there? It’s because the mosquito “doesn’t know better” so we excuse it or kill it ourselves. Humans, however, assume that everybody equally understands something or has the capacity to understand something. Therefore, creating one judicial system based on the same principles for all humanity in one particular place is sensible upon first glance. Of course, the law does make exceptions for certain people diagnosed with conditions or illnesses — but does it really accommodate all the floors of reason observed across humanity? Socrates posits that humans are rational animals, and we act according to the best of our knowledge or reason; any unjust action simply stems from ignorance of information. Though, what if it stems from incapacity? If a human is truly incapable of understanding a rule or following it, should they really be punished? Does “they don’t know any better” justify injustice? A better question: to what extent does “they don’t know any better” excuse unjust actions? Before we investigate that, first we must explore whether the premise of the question itself is true. Obviously, not every human is perspicacious, but one could argue that one doesn’t need to show exceptional prowess — in our narrow definitions of it — to grasp the concept of basic human respect and rights. That is, yet another assumption we treat as an inexorable fact when the opposing perspective is still partially defensible. It is evidenced that biological and genetic differences can cause differences in each individual’s ability to learn (Stern, 2017). Whilst these differences are predominantly shown in school students, it can linger toward adulthood, as well. Evidence suggests that individual variations in the brain structure do engage with conceptual understanding and reasoning (Jung, 2007). However, when such limitations are visible, the law does account for them; therefore, there is a striking consensus between the two. In criminal law, to be found guilty of a crime, a mens rea must be present — meaning that if a person does not understand the nature of their actions because of a neurological limitation, they are not competent to stand trial. Two fundamental questions surface here: a) what if the neurological limitation is not visible or does not meet a specific threshold? b) how is justice being served to the victim? The second question is fairly easy to answer: the victim is not denied justice, but rather the justice shifts from serving punitive justice to protective/restorative justice. This may still seem unfair to the victim because the instinctive reaction would be “why is the defendant not given punishment when the action he/she committed sufficed in severity to warrant it, and instead given help and containment?” This exact dilemma acts as an impetus to a striking moral and legal debate. A comprehensive approach to understanding this is imagining that there exists a more intelligent species alongside humanity, and us acting to the best of our understanding is morally unjust to this species; would being punished be fair to us? Though, would invalidating the harm caused be fair to the other species? This is a quintessential demonstration of what I designate as moral immiscibility: when two or more frameworks conflict because of the limitations of one. The previous article I wrote on The Intellekt concludes that morals and ethics are on the emotional basis that a group or, in this context, species share. What should said system rectify or preserve when one species is fundamentally incapable of understanding the moral basis of the other if they consistently interact and violate the principles of either framework? The answer is austere: one does not judge another on the basis of their moral philosophy; you do not judge another person on the basis of your religion because the other person may bleakly not believe in the same god or live by the same ethical architecture. It’s the equivalent of saying “I am on a diet; so you shouldn’t eat that.” Therefore, going to the extent of punishment does not align with the reasoning and logic used here. Of course, the human race is diverse but we must accept and accommodate the differences, and perhaps this mindset is a way of doing that. I am not telling you what to do; hell! That’s the point of this discussion.
I definitely enjoyed thinking about the concept of this article a lot! I know that I may have oversimplified some legal concepts but I've been wanting to make the broader conclusion for a while. I have something to confess while I'm already here: a few people have started reading The Intellekt now and I just wanna say that a) really appreciate it, and b) please feel free to give your criticisms or suggestions for new articles through the contact email I have on the home page; I would love recieve whatever you may have in stock for me! Anyways, that was it, I wish everybody a good day! :)