The Social Contract Hangs by a Thread : We cede our impulse for vengeance for the state’s promise of justice; now it seemswe’ve been betrayed.

The Rodney King verdict and its tumultuous aftermath provide a frightening lesson on the tenuous nature of our social order. A night of violence teaches us that when the perception of a just society is replaced with a sense that our system of justice is capricious and possibly prejudiced, social order is replaced by chaos.

At some unknown point in the evolution from beast to man, we voluntarily surrendered our right to individual justice. The social contract that holds the fabric of modern civilizations together is weaved from a simple bargain. Man gave up his right to individual vengeance, left his spears at the doorstep of civilization, and, in return, the state promised to create a rule of law, a system of justice, which would fairly and systematically vindicate public and private wrongs.

When man relinquished the right to personal vengeance, he gave up a great deal. Psychologically, the state’s efforts at justice can never provide the impulsive satisfaction of hearing your victimizer plea for mercy at your own hands. However, in return, the state gives us two great gifts. First, the state lends each of us its awesome power so that even the weak may have revenge. Second, the state imposes order and reason on the process of social vengeance, hopefully ensuring that the innocent will not be slaughtered by the blind passion that energizes personal vengeance.

In large measure, the public debate over the death penalty reflects a struggle to find a correct balance between the desire for bestial revenge and the need for an objective and rational system of punishment.

The lesson from the violent aftermath of the King verdict is that when the perception of justice diminishes in the eyes of a significant cultural subgroup, they will, at least temporarily, withdraw from the social contract and return to the speedy and passionate form of justice that empowers the frustrated and disenfranchised. The true victim of the King verdict was the public perception of justice--many have lost faith that our criminal and civil justice system can right wrongs.

The erosion of confidence in the legal system is felt in every part of our society. The law and lawyers have created a maze of cabalistic procedures, tricks and games that looks more like witchcraft than justice.

The King verdict was the product of a legal trick and a subtle psychological manipulation. The legal trick was simple: changing the venue of the trial from multicultural Los Angeles to pristine Simi Valley. He who controls who judges controls the judgment.

The psychological manipulation rested on the simple rule of desensitization. No matter how horrific a visual scene, no matter how obvious the injustice, repeated exposure, over and over again, saps the natural emotional impact and undermines our latent sense of justice.

It is the principle of desensitization that allows soldiers to kill and surgeons to cure. Repeated exposure silences our gut sense of repugnance and justice, and most important, allows the verbal magic of lawyers’ arguments and the hypnotic influence of pseudo-experts to triumph over the wisdom of our immediate emotional response.

Surprisingly, the manipulations and tricks in the King case were trivial compared with what goes on every day in our court houses. As a result, we have become so thirsty for simple justice that we celebrate when just one killer is put to death.

Businessmen in the corporate sector are now searching for a way out of hiring an army of lawyers to resolve civil disputes. Supreme Court nominations are attended by the cacophony of full political campaigns. The growing perception that our court system is incapable of producing a speedy, affordable and fair resolution of human conflict threatens a cherished social contract.

Today the price of this perception is an eruption of violence; tomorrow it will be social retreat and depression.