How can we solve the moral problem of indigenous deaths in custody? - ABC Religion & Ethics
I want to offer a philosophical diagnosis that makes clear why these failures are systemic. They cannot be fixed by cultural sensitivity training for individuals working in the justice system. Some individuals are at fault, but they aren't the real problem. The system is at fault, especially when it promulgates 'tough on crime' crackdowns on crime waves. In a broken system, even good people doing their best can find beneficent intentions come to nothing — or even make things worse.
Philosophy has a long tradition of thought experiments that place individuals in morally terrible circumstances. One famous example was advanced in a 1965 paper by the Australian philosopher H.J. McCloskey. It was published at the height of the civil rights debates in the United States and involves an imagined sheriff in a Southern town who must decide whether to frame an innocent black man in order to prevent mob violence or social unrest.
The following thought experiment updates this approach to expose how even well-intentioned individuals may be powerless, or even complicit, in an unjust system. This deliberately inverted scenario draws on the stereotype of the racist cop — not to trivialise injustice, but to make visible how systems entangle even those who aim to rectify injustice.
The reverse-racist cop
Frank is the moral mirror image of the stereotypically racist cop. He is committed to correcting historical harms suffered by First Nations peoples. To balance the scales of justice, Frank decides to be especially tough on crime committed by wealthy people of European descent.
Determined to redress what he sees as a long history of disproportionately punishing indigenous people for minor infractions, Frank targets white-collar offences like corporate tax evasion. He petitions his superiors for drone technology to track expensive cars exceeding the speed limit. Once suspects are detained, he resolves to make no effort to accommodate their emotional or cultural needs.
His colleagues caution him that two wrongs don't make a right. Frank understands that many of those he arrests have legitimate grievances. But he replies that even the best judicial systems sometimes treat individuals unfairly. His dominant concern is fairness between peoples , not fairness to individuals .
However, Frank's new approach coincides with politicians' announcement of a law-and-order crackdown. During such crackdowns, police don't simply pursue justice. They go where politicians and voters want them. The people Frank wishes to target have taken the hint and avoid the areas now labelled as 'crime ridden'. Frank would love to report that there is no crime to pursue. But his is a reported high-crime area during a politically designated crime wave.
Needing arrests to prove he's doing his job, Frank finds himself, despite his intentions, arresting the usual suspects for the usual kinds of crimes.
I don't mean to morally endorse Frank's policy. It is simply wrong to consign to solitary confinement a Porsche driver for wilfully travelling at 60 in a 50 zone. The thought experiment shows that the system has a biased view about which kinds of crimes to punish and which to tolerate. Its purpose is to illuminate how even those determined to correct historical harms can be thwarted by flawed systems.
The thought experiment isn't meant to be an empirically accurate description of policing in Australia. But that shouldn't matter. Consider Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous story about an individual hooked up to a sick violinist for nine months. Her scenario carried a moral lesson that paid little regard to the biological specifics of pregnancy or abortion.
Populist politicians understand that identifying specific individuals who have committed terrible crimes can swing an election. Police forces cracking down on crime can apprehend many such individuals. There is a crude-but-effective electoral logic in presenting immigrants as inclined to crime. So long as you can find some actual examples, such claims are not straightforwardly falsified.
There is, in contrast, little emotional gratification in blaming the system. Isn't the system just the system?
Who should we blame for the system?
If we need individuals to blame for the justice system's current failures, we can find them? Today's morally malfunctioning policies and laws were enacted by individuals in the past, most of whom are now dead. Aboriginal peoples have at least 65,000 years of continuous occupation of Australia. But it was the ancestors of settlers who made most of the laws — laws that may have made sense in their own time. We live in another.
If we are going to respect the views of the dead, we must not omit the views of indigenous Australians who had insufficient input into our nation's laws. Suppose you could talk to those ancestors and update them on the fact that Australia is now a rich multicultural nation. They are unlikely to suggest logging onto social media to hashtag #CancelThePolice. What might they say about indigenous deaths in custody? What recommendations might they make? Fortunately, we can do better than idle speculation. We can ask their descendants. The Voice to Parliament would have offered a format for that advice to be given on a regular basis.
I have avoided the easy trope of the racist cop. Most people in law enforcement are decent individuals doing their best. But, as Hannah Arendt and others have shown, even good people can be slowly reshaped by bad systems. Just turning up to work each day can require moral adaptation. Over time, a kind of moral dulling sets in, required by those who continue to work within the system. For those who want to advance in the system, the path may demand more than compliance. It may demand vocal endorsement of policies they privately know are unjust. We don't need to wait for history to judge the system. We are the system. And we must change it.
Nicholas Agar is Professor of Ethics at the University of Waikato in Aotearoa New Zealand. He is the author of How to be Human in the Digital Economy and Dialogues on Human Enhancement, and co-author (with Stuart Whatley and Dan Weijers) of How to Think about Progress: A Skeptic's Guide to Technology.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Wighton cops four-game ban in a huge blow for the Rabbitohs
Wayne Bennett's hopes of avoiding his first wooden spoon have taken a massive hit with veteran playmaker Jack Wighton slapped with a whopping four-match ban after he was found guilty of a grade two shoulder charge at the NRL judiciary on Tuesday night. The Rabbitohs have lost eight in a row and head into round 22 in last spot behind the Knights and Titans on points differential, but their hopes of causing a gigantic boilover against the Broncos have copped a devastating blow with their five-eighth sidelined. He joins a host of stars who are missing for the club including Cam Murray, Latrell Mitchell and Cody Walker. Wighton could have accepted a three-match ban for the grade two charge that saw him sent to the sin bin for a tackle that knocked out Cronulla's Toby Rudolf on Saturday night but rolled the dice after he pleaded not guilty. The panel of Greg McCallum and Bob Lindner listened to the 75-minute hearing and deliberated for just 15 minutes before they unanimously found him guilty. 'It was a fair hearing,' Wighton said afterwards. 'We came here thinking we had a good case. We didn't get the result we wanted. 'I'll turn my attention to preparing my teammates and really helping everyone at my club the best way I can.' It was a reunion of sorts between Wighton and judiciary counsel Patrick Knowles, with the five-eighth asking him 'how many games of rugby league have you played?' during a fiery hearing in 2023 when he was banned for three matches for biting. Wighton didn't give evidence on this occasion, a point not lost on Knowles who suggested he could have explained why there were no other options available to him to make a different type of tackle. However, judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew reminded the panel that Wighton had no obligation to justify. Knowles described the contact as a 'textbook example of a shoulder charge' and that he twisted his body, the right shoulder led the forceful contact and that his left arm raised in a bracing motion but didn't attempt to wrap. 'The amount of force generated in a tackle that used no arms carries a significant risk of injury,' he said. 'The shoulder was the first impact and carried the primary degree of force.' Prominent Sydney lawyer Nick Ghabar represented Wighton and argued it was 'quite wrong' to suggest he propped and drove with the shoulder and that he did his best to avoid a head on collision. Ghabar argued that the right arm wrapped around Rudolf's left arm before contact and that the Cronulla forward generated the force by leading with his head and arms. 'Rudolf stepped 'violently' off his left foot,' he said, arguing that it was inevitable that there'd be a more violent collision if Wighton hadn't dipped his body. 'Wighton drops his body height to avoid the risk of a head clash. He's got a split second decision to make. He's attempting to tackle with his left arm but his right arm doesn't have the ability to swing around the back of Rudolf.' The referee's report from Belinda Sharpe included a quote from Wighton that said 'I couldn't get my arm out', while the medical report said the injury was caused by a 'head clash from opponent'. Ghabar suggested that the first contact was shoulder on shoulder, but that played into the argument it was an actual shoulder charge. Knowles refuted a number of those arguments and pointed out Wighton's right fist was clenched so it couldn't have been a conventional wrapping tackle and that he could've twisted the other way and made a conventional left shoulder tackle. Ghabar sought a downgrade that would have seen Wighton miss two matches, but it was dismissed after Knowles argued the force was moderate, it was careless and the risk of injury was moderate and that the risk came to fruition. Wighton will miss matches against the Broncos, Titans, Eels and Dragons and will return in the final round against the Roosters, with Lewis Dodd likely to start in the halves.

ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
CSIRO report shows renewables still cheapest form of energy
Chris Bowen is the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and he speaks to Sarah Ferguson about the increased government support for clean energy projects.


SBS Australia
4 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Labor scrambles to anticipate Trump's next tariffs play
Labor scrambles to anticipate Trump's next tariffs play Published 29 July 2025, 6:46 am The Australian Government is scrambling to make sense of the latest remarks from the US President which suggest the nation could face higher tariffs than anticipated. As the deadline for the decision looms, the opposition remains convinced the lack of face-to-face negotiations has led to a worse outcome for Australia.