The 100 Season 5: Crime and Punishment
The moral case for making sure people follow the rules and punishing those who don't.
Can the individual go too far? At what point do the actions of the individual go beyond what a society can tolerate? And what should society do in order to deal with someone who does? These are the fundamental questions that exist when living in a society once things have gone beyond the basics of survival. It's far from easy to work out given that the importance of individual choices are paramount.
As we examined previously, we looked at why there are rules and how to go about living within a society of rules. We also considered how to deal with conflict between different groups living based on different sets of rules. More recently, we looked at the problem of building society around a totalizing concept of how society should be run, and finally how to build a society around the value of the individual. But there are those who won't go along with the rules of society. People who refuse to do what's expected of them, even when it's best for everyone. They only care about themselves and their own interests.
While this sounds reasonable, given the way we've explored them in the past, it doesn't necessarily end up that way. Especially because people's needs can conflict in really fundamental ways. Not just on an individual level between people, but on a societal level. Primarily because in order to function in a group as a society, we have to consider that we all have a vested interest in society doing what we need it to. Providing the things we need so that none of us are forced to harm each other. This requires societal cohesion and a willingness to view other people's crimes as a crime against the group.
“All of me for all of us.”
As a society, there has to be some way of remedying this problem in a way that maintains the functionality of society without eliminating individual choice. In order to do this we have to have some kind of combination of what we've looked at previously. This type of problem creates conflict. Taking from others always does. So we'd have to employ a type of conflict resolution, but a slightly different one than previously discussed. We have to implement a form of punishment for those who break the rules. Even in a situation where the individual's value is paramount, there has to be some kind of order imposed.
Which is where the idea of the criminal comes in. Someone who commits a crime against another person must not be allowed to get away with it. However, you also have to consider that any punishment must be reasonable enough so as not to create animosity between the punished and those for whom the punishment is being enacted. There are many ways to achieve this. Things like banishment and imprisonment are the natural outcomes of such a way of thinking. They allow people to feel as though justice is being served without imposing too much of a burden on the offending individual.
Octavia's role as Bloodrayna serves this purpose. She serves as a swift form of justice in a society where people go beyond what's acceptable within that society. Anyone who harms another either by physically hurting them or taking something which isn't theirs, gets dealt with efficiently, if pretty brutally. It's a necessary part of living in the bunker. She's the authority people turn to. Her word is law and there really is no way to dispute it. Through this process, she's able to maintain a functionally structured society. Even if some people aren't as on board with it, like Kane and Abby. Where she runs into problems is with how she distributes justice, with total brutality.
“You are Wonkru or you are the enemy of Wonkru... choose.”
Once their punishment has been served, people can move forward and learn to work together again in a better society. At least, that's the general idea. It's not always as simple as that. Particularly if the criminal has committed a serious offence of some kind, like the murder of another group member. Such a destructive crime can't ever be undone. Similarly, you have to consider that those who have been on the receiving end of a murder, like the family of the murder victim, will never consider the debt repaid no matter how long the banishment or prison sentence.
McCreary and Dioyza are examples of people who have committed such terrible crimes that they have been banished from society as well as imprisoned. Forced to work as indentured servants, some might think of them as slaves, until such time as their sentence is up. Or that's the idea anyway. In reality, they find themselves in perpetual servitude. That is until they manage to come into power. Dioyza manages to gain control of the prison she's been forced to live under and uses many of the same punishments used against her to maintain control. Because of course the only people around her are fellow criminals, and they're not in the habit of following rules.
Where the two of them diverge is in whether or not they're willing to reintegrate into society once their punishment is over with. Dioyza is at least partly interested in the idea of becoming part of a functioning society. She sees value in building a sense of community again, so long as it's on her own terms. Part of the reason she became a criminal is because she didn't like the way in which society was structured and how it should've been working. Her willingness to do so is based in part on wanting a better world for her future offspring. So long as she can secure it for them.
McCreary is a good contrast to her. Unlike Dioyza, he's only willing to work according to his own rules. Serving only his own interests to the exclusion of all others. He will sacrifice anyone and anything to that end. His primary obstacle to achieving this is Dioyza herself. She's enforcing a set of rules on him and those he can use for his own ends that they don't want to live under. As a result, there's a clash between the two and only one can ultimately survive. It's a hard line that neither of them are willing to compromise over.
In order to get the justice they feel is deserved, they might even be willing to commit a crime themselves. A society which is worth participating in must treat those trying to get retributive justice for crimes committed against them the same way it would treat the original offence. While some reasonable amounts of accommodation would have to be made, it's still necessary to treat a crime against society equally. Otherwise you get into real morally blurry territory for the society in question. People don't like to feel as though justice hasn't been served.
This is seen in the way Bloodrayna and Dioyza differ in their approaches to things. While both of them are fundamentally brutal in their approaches to justice, in only one of the circumstances is it actually necessary. Dioyza is dealing with people under her leadership who would kill her in a second if they ever got the opportunity. McCreary being the best example.
On the other hand, Bloodrayna doesn't have to be as brutal as she is. There were multiple points at which she could've chosen a less brutal path. Moments where a less painful form of punishment could be done. Instead, she chose brutality and war. Her unwillingness to choose the less destructive path results in a sense of injustice among those who would otherwise follow her. It's because of this that when a potentially more suitable leader comes along, she sees them as a threat. This comes in the form of Maddie. Though she is only a child, her link to a less brutal form of leadership and justice gives her a power that Bloodrayna simply can't abide.
As a result, a conflict of leadership arises, even with someone as innocent as a child. Destroying Maddie would bring Bloodrayna's legitimacy into question. But bringing her over to Octavia's way of thinking and using that to her advantage would go a long way to securing what she wants. Which is a way to continue her reign and continue her form of justice.
There are instances where such an urgent way of doing things is necessary. In situations where the continuation of the species is at risk, you can justify almost any level of brutality to make it work. You can go from a way of thinking about justice that's more about vengeance than it is justice. About retribution than maintaining a system people can live with. When you find your way out of such a scenario, then you need a better form of justice. Kane is the best example of the ability to see the problem of being so obsessed with brutality that it leads you down the wrong path. Partly because he has been on the other side of it. He has been the brutal leader willing to do anything to survive. He sees where it can lead and wants to find a way to avoid it.
“Strength without mercy is nothing.”
If you don't, you can end up in a mob justice situation where the wronged people can rally those who feel justice hasn't been served to enact their own. This also must be considered something of a crime as well. People can't take justice into their own hands. That's no way to create a cohesive whole of a society. It can only lead to a fracturing between groups looking for justice. Authority for the redistribution of justice has to be delegated to someone or some groups over others. While a leader can be beneficial, there must be those a leader can empower to work on their behalf. A group of people who those with a grievance can turn to in an urgent time frame to avoid further conflict.
Doing so allows people to avoid a direct confrontation in the short term and mediate problems until a greater process can be implemented. Creating a functional system under which people can feel comfortable resolving smaller conflicts that don't require the intervention of the leader's force. But only if everyone is willing to go along with it. Particularly those in charge of such things. They are subject to the same problems as anyone else, despite their elevated status within society. If those in charge of mediating conflict end up creating conflict, we need a way to deal with that as well. Only those above them can function as creators of justice.
We can see this play out in how Octavia, Dioyza and ultimately Clarke and Bellamy come into conflict. Each have their own ideas of justice. All of them want their form of justice to be implemented. But they can't necessarily get what they want. One form of justice must win out in the end. If not, then you live in a form of purgatory where no one manages to be happy with the outcome. Only through getting some form of justice, will things end well.
Either that or you create the kind of conflict we've seen in the past but on a much larger scale. With people on both sides looking to deal out justice and empowered to find it, you end up wanting to wipe each other out. Or perhaps wiping out the thing they want to get as a form of justice. For instance, the last place on Earth where anyone can reasonably live and continue the species. This doesn't end well for anyone.
The only thing beyond that is to find a better place. Some place beyond the simplistic forms of justice that each of them want for themselves. A higher form of justice that goes far beyond even those in charge. That everyone can believe is better and more powerful than any single person. Yet singular in its ability to offer that justice. But everyone has to believe in this justice for it to work. You might even call it a higher being of some kind.
We'll get to this in a future instalment however. Particularly when we get to season 6. You can also check out the final part of this series here.
Check it out on Netflix.
The 100 Season 5: Crime and Punishment
Thankyou for sharing. So Interesting, How well this portrayed the many layers of the moral parable of "domocles sword". You can empathize with each and every side, and see how the ebbs and flows of any morals and their paradoxical multidimensional life lessons, can and will happen to anyone throughout human history. As individuals, clans, or as a whole and evolving species.