The structure of our justice system owes much to the enlightenment. I suspect, however, the judiciary of this country are driven by jealousy of the successes of the physical sciences. They secretly envy the confidence (they perceive to be) characteristic of the scientific community. I could point out how this perception is truly silly, but that would be tangential to the task at hand: Explaining why our justice system can never be a formal-logical construct.

          As arbiters of justice, the judiciary have assembled an impressive array of procedures for getting to the truth. By tradition, and by necessity, the foundation of these procedures is the long history of classical logic tempered by the judicious application of the concept known as "precedents". Judicial practice favors the logical conclusion grounded in incontrovertible facts. Barring that, all parties agree to accept a decision, by a neutral third party, grounded in those principles. This is usually done through an adversarial process of litigation or binding arbitration leading too often to a "winner take all" conclusion with no real resolution of conflicts or grievances.

          While our justice system is well designed to "get the job done", it is not particularly suited to the task of finding Truth, Justice, and the American Way as most of the other essays at this site substantiate. It is clear, our justice system is broken. I think the primary cause of its disfunction is that litigants (or potential litigants) are too often removed from the process. Cue dramatic music and consider - - - Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . . . The inability to identify active agents coupled to the sophomoric notion that "we can win" has created an atmosphere in which we are guaranteed to fail.

          A light at the end of the tunnel is the Office of Dispute Resolution. A few years ago, as a cynical cost cutting measure, mediation centers began to be developed around the country. More recently, state governments have established alternative dispute resolution options for its citizens. These new institutions stress the need for conflict resolution via cooperative mediation and restorative justice techniques.

          I keep thinking how nice it would be to force executives (that have made profoundly stupid decisions while hiding behind anonymity) to talk with those most effected by those decisions. I doubt this sort of change will occur in my lifetime, but I know a few in the system that share this vision . . . and that gives me comfort.