Equality And Punishment

Equality and Punishment

True Equality, it is what we as a country have been striving for since our inception, or at least what we like to represent ourselves as striving for. The concept of equality is in no way simple. Many lawyers, scholars, and philosophers have produced varying ways to define, criticize, and interpret it. Two in particular are Kurt Vonnegut Junior and Derek A. Bell. Both of these men take a more critical approach and both Vonnegut and Bell speak of equality on two different levels, equality of ability and equality of race, respectively.

Punishment is another controversial issue. Which kind of punishment goes with which kind of crime? Do our current types of punishment do their job and are they adequate? These are all questions asked over and over again. There reason that no one can agree is an issue of equality. Punishment to be affective must be based on equality. But just what is equality really?

Vonnegut takes the stance that true equality eventually leads to self-restriction and a halt to the growth of the individual. That to be equal no one may surpass anyone in any level, as evident in his classic short story. Equality in this sense is a society stripped of originality and competition, much like the society in Fieghrnhieght 451 (which draws many parallels to the type of society in "Harrison Bergeron"). To be equal is to be the same in all ability, exactly the same, and this is Vonnegut's view of true equality.

Bell looks primarily at race for his stance on equality. Bell believes that there will always be racism and that equality must come not from symbolic relief but from actual judicial planning. He takes a look at certain past situations such as "separate but equal" segregation and ponders on what would happen if the equal were focused on instead of the separate. Dissolving such things as segregation does not promote equality. How can equality be achieved because of proximity (segregations case the proximity of white to black students in school)? There must be a correction to the problem not just a dissolving. True equality has to be Judicially monitored by members of all involved and neutrals voted into this council.

The problem Vonnegut addresses is that equality in ability is impossible without self imposed or forced restriction, leaving us in a society that strives for mediocrity, not greatness. Equality thus restricts the society in this case by handicapping the individual, thus slow production, and less quality in products and life. This does not mean that equality should be abolished, because ability is not the only aspect of equality.

Bells complementary view thus comes into play. People of all race, sex, and preference should be given equal opportunity. The follies of our past must be understood and fixed, not just dismantled in a stride toward equality. Racism in Bells view will always be and that is why the law must govern equality. The evil in man is where racism stands and equality governed by man is then impossible. The law (not man's enforcement of it) does not have room for this prejudice. This is a strong point made by Bell and extremely accurate. If the social injustice is remedied by giving minorities, women, etc. unfair advantages then that is not truly equality at all.

Thus the views are complementary when they are combined. Equality based only on ability regardless of race. In adherence to Bells view this is a remedy that falls with his view of true equality. People will be educated equally with the opportunity for success based only on their ability. Yet in Vonnegut's view this does not promote true equality. Competition is still evident and the equality of ability cannot exist, which is not a bad thing. So even as the views are complementary they are also opposing. One cannot be remedied without the other falling further from its true equality standing. The views are much like two magnets attracting