Fewer Rules, Better People: The Case for Discretion

Lam, a philosophy professor at the University of California-Riverside, debuts with an intriguing if mostly anecdotal argument “for the value of discretionary decision-making in criminal justice and organizations of scale.” Unlike rules, which can result in injustices as actions and people are treated categorically and subtleties are ignored, discretion fosters moral consideration of behavior and maximizes “fairness, justice, efficiency, and effectiveness,” according to the author. Marshaling examples from the criminal justice system, bureaucracies, and artificial intelligence, he criticizes rule-bound practices as rooted in legalism, or the idea of “operat[ing] under a system of policy, procedure, and law” that aims for fairness but fails to consider how decision-makers’ identities change how they enforce rules. Lam proposes that organizations should be staffed with decision-makers who are trained to use their discretion, who exercise moral responsibility, and who are regulated by ethics boards. Unfortunately, his argument is weakened by a failure to satisfactorily define discretion in the first place, and to adequately consider the moral, organizational, and political ramifications involved (for instance, how exactly would a society identify someone with the wisdom or morals to exercise proper discretion?). The result is a provocative yet incomplete look at what it might take to create a fairer world. (Feb.)