The king's method of justice is poetic justice. This means that the fates or the universe will provide that people are fittingly punished for their crimes. This assumes that "chance" is never "chance" but has the workings of a just god or universe behind it.
The king offers his poetic justice by forcing the accused to choose between two doors: Behind one is a hungry tiger who will devour the victim. Behind the other is a beautiful maiden the accused (always assumed to be a male) will marry with great fanfare.
According to the narrator, this means of dispensing justice is very popular. The citizens of the kingdom enjoy this justice system because it is suspenseful and entertaining. They all gather in a huge amphitheater to watch the proceedings, not knowing what the outcome will be. Either one is satisfying to them. The text states that
the masses were entertained and pleased, and the thinking part of the community could bring no charge of unfairness against this plan, for did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own hands?
However, we do have to take this with a grain of salt. The narrator is dryly tongue-in-cheek, mixing objective narration liberally with the opinions of the tyrannous king, a man who is unwilling to allow dissent. We learn from the narrator, who uses euphemisms to humorous effect, that
nothing pleased him [the king] so much as to make the crooked straight and crush down uneven places.
In other words, were people to find this form of justice bloodthirsty and barbaric, they would know to keep their mouths shut, because the king would be delighted to "crush" them. We might especially imagine that the "thinking part" of the community might not accept the king's contention that his justice system's "perfect fairness is obvious" or that the element of chance behind it is "incorruptible."
The institution was a very popular one. When the people gathered together on one of the great trial days, they never knew whether they were to witness a bloody slaughter or a hilarious wedding. This element of uncertainty lent an interest to the occasion which it could not otherwise have attained. Thus, the masses were entertained and pleased, and the thinking part of the community could bring no charge of unfairness against this plan, for did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own hands?
Further Reading
The king's justice in Frank Stockton's short story "The Lady or the Tiger" involves an arena and pure luck. An accused man is led into an amphitheater where he has the choice of two doors. Behind one door is a tiger which promptly kills him, or from behind the other door is a lady who promptly marries him. If he's lucky, he chooses the lady and, in the king's mind, proves his innocence. The opposite choice proves his guilt.
Stockton tells the reader the institution was widely popular and well attended. He writes,
The institution was a very popular one. When the people gathered together on one of the great trial days, they never knew whether they were to witness a bloody slaughter or a hilarious wedding. This element of uncertainty lent an interest to the occasion which it could not otherwise have attained. Thus, the masses were entertained and pleased, and the thinking part of the community could bring no charge of unfairness against this plan, for did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own hands?
Of course, if you were part of the family of a man who found himself face to face with a hungry tiger you might not think much of the king's justice. Also, if you were a woman who was married to an accused man after he chose the door with a lady, you might not care for it either.
The crowds are particularly interested in the trial of princess's lover. He has been accused of simply being in love with royalty. More than ever, the arena was packed with interested subjects. Stockton writes,
From far and near the people gathered, and thronged the great galleries of the arena, and crowds, unable to gain admittance, massed themselves against its outside walls.
Stockton writes tongue-in-cheek, or ironically, about the tyrannical king who establishes a system of "justice" based on pure chance. We learn of the king that
at his will, he turned his varied fancies into facts.
We are told too that
The institution was a very popular one.
However, it is not clear if it is "popular" because people are terrified to offend this king or because they actually enjoy the spectacle of watching a person, always apparently a male, either being devoured by a ravenous tiger or meeting the beautiful maiden he will marry. We are told that the king enjoys crushing his opponents in order make the path of his will smooth and straight, which suggests people would be likely to go along with what he wants, in order to stay alive.
However, the text does suggest that people might enjoy the spectacle:
When the people gathered together on one of the great trial days, they never knew whether they were to witness a bloody slaughter or a hilarious wedding. This element of uncertainty lent an interest to the occasion which it could not otherwise have attained.
The narrator compares this justice system to the gladiator fights in arenas that were popular in the Roman era. Since human nature is human nature, it is probable that people did enjoy the spectacle, which, like a sporting event, has no predetermined outcomes.
Regardless of the enjoyment of the spectacle, however, we are not told how the people feel about this as a way of dispensing justice. Since only the ideas and will of the king matter, and since he seems oblivious to other people's feelings, it makes sense we wouldn't know.
The citizens of the kingdom greatly applaud the king's method of justice. Because of the unpredictability of any one trial, the people find the king's method of administering justice extremely entertaining.
They never know when they will be witness to "a bloody slaughter or a hilarious wedding." Therefore, the element of "uncertainty" in the proceedings keeps the citizens greatly engrossed in the elements of each trial. To them, the king's trials are moments of either celebratory pomp or unsurpassed violence. They are ready to enjoy either, highlighting the fact that the people are just as "semi-barbaric" as their king.
Also, the people feel that the king's trials are emblems of his fair and impartial judgment. Since each criminal in question has a choice in picking his judgment, the consensus is that he cannot in good conscience level a charge of "unfairness" against the king.
The king in Stockton's "The Lady, or the Tiger?" is described as "semi-barbaric." If the king is only halfway civilized, then it is logical to infer that his subjects are just like he is. If the king loves the fact that his system of justice is based on a chance-driven, marriage or death trial, then his subjects must like it, too. In fact, the king doesn't build the arena and system of justice merely for brutal sport; the text says that he builds the arena "to widen and develop the mental energies of the people." Because trials in the arena present citizens with a suspenseful and uncertain ending each time, it also provides them with excitement. The text says that "the masses were entertained and pleased, and the thinking part of the community could bring no charge of unfairness against this plan; for did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own hands?" This means that most people are entertained when there is a trial in the arena; but, even the intellectuals of the kingdom find no argument because the victim has a choice about which door to choose. That's not saying much for the intellectual community, but they accept the arena for what it is nonetheless.