The measure as written
The rule of IS RETRIBUTION ESSENTIAL? sets the severity of a guilt by the disturbance it causes:
The severity of guilt is determined by the degree of disturbance that is produced in the society (ideal), i.e. the more the disturbance, the more severe the guilt. (Disturbance includes the subsequent strengthening of the source that produced it, while also taking into account the new sources that emerge afterwards.)
Step 1 of the judge's procedure determines that disturbance:
Step 1: Determine the degree of disturbance caused in the society by this act. This can be done by taking into account some aspects to be discussed here:
It takes five aspects. The provocation amount:
Provocation amount, i.e. how this act affected the perception of other individuals in the society about the guilt (the degree of change in reluctance, i.e. whether they became relatively more inclined towards doing the same action or did not care at all). There is always a designated value for the society that is the threshold, while it varies from culture to culture. Every culture can determine the increment by extensive study.
The security shock:
Security shock, i.e. the level at which the security status of the society is disturbed. Whenever an out-of-line action (evil/unethical) takes place in the society, other individuals demand security changes to prevent the same from happening afterwards. This demand is in fact another criterion for determining the severity of guilt. If more and more people are feeling unsafe, then this means the severity level of the guilt is increasing. (It can be measured by the rise in the demand for security, e.g. requests for guards, cameras or patrols in the affected area, before and after the act.)
The psychological depression:
Psychological depression, i.e. how much those immediately affected suffered psychologically due to the evil/unethical action (measured according to the sensitivity status of the concerned individuals) (although a reference value is preferable, because it is a manageable one, as determining the exact psychological depression status is at times challenging and requires great cooperation from those affected).
The material damage, on the basis of reversibility (whether it can be undone, and if so, what it takes to fix it) and on the basis of involvement:
It is taken into account whether the damage was a direct result of the actions of the guilty person or whether it was indirect, i.e. a middle agent or source is present.
Usually, direct damage represents a more severe guilt (this is valid for a confined affected area or scope). In cases where there is a huge difference between direct & indirect damage for the same guilt, the severity is assigned according to the scope or area that is affected (Charts 6 and 7).
It is to be noted that a guilt can either be a Uni-Damage Case (UDC) or a Bi-Damage Case (BDC): UDC if the material damage is either direct or indirect, and BDC when the material damage is direct as well as indirect (in BDC, the retribution for both damages is taken separately, i.e. the two are added together).
And the retraction ability, with the measure of all five:
Retraction ability, i.e. the natural capability to retract and continue the normal path. There is largely a constant value that nature has programmed into our very foundation (while there exist outliers with an increased value). There exists a variety of viruses that have the ability to corrupt the programme and disturb the normal functioning, causing an error or a complete shutdown. The criterion is that the lower the value of retraction ability, the more severe the guilt, and hence more retribution is suggested. Now, what are these viruses? Actually, there is a wide variety of them, and in fact these are the effects caused by a source that leads towards the guilt. (In practice, each of these aspects can be measured: the provocation amount by the rise or fall of similar cases afterwards, the security shock by the rise in the demand for security, the psychological depression on a standard scale against its reference value, the material damage by its cost, and the retraction ability by the past record; these scores are then combined in one published grid with agreed weights, so that similar cases receive similar retribution, and the grid is audited every year by comparing the verdicts of different judges in similar cases.)
This sub-section sets out how the degree of disturbance is determined: each of the five aspects measured on its own, the scores combined in one published grid, and the grid audited every year.
What it measures, in plain words
Before a retribution is given, the judge determines how much the act disturbed the society: "the more the disturbance, the more severe the guilt".
The five aspects, each with its own measure.
· Provocation amount. Whether others became more inclined to do the same, or did not care at all. The threshold varies from culture to culture, and every culture can determine the increment by extensive study. Measured "by the rise or fall of similar cases afterwards".
· Security shock. How far the security of the society is disturbed, as people demand changes to prevent the same from happening again. Measured "by the rise in the demand for security".
· Psychological depression. How much those immediately affected suffered. Measured "on a standard scale against its reference value".
· Material damage. Whether it can be undone, and whether it came directly from the guilty person or through a middle agent; where it is both, the retribution for each is taken and the two are added together. Measured "by its cost".
· Retraction ability. The natural capability to retract and continue the normal path; the lower it is, the more severe the guilt. Measured "by the past record".
One grid. The five scores are "combined in one published grid with agreed weights, so that similar cases receive similar retribution".
A yearly audit. The grid is "audited every year by comparing the verdicts of different judges in similar cases".