Some Questions about the Justice System

Click here to join my mailing list and stay up to date!

If someone kills my son by running them over and it would have been morally and legally justified to have shot them before they ran over my son then why can't I simply walk up to them anytime after they killed my son and shoot him in the head? Why can I shoot someone who breaks into my house tonight but I can't go to their house and kill them tomorrow? 

What changes between the initial interaction; for example, someone is in a shootout with the police and therefore the police officers are justified in killing the attacker and catching them later in a hotel where the person is taken into custody? Why not shoot them right there? 

Is it due to an uncertainty rule? Because at the moment you are certain who to fire at but in the future, you may not need to fire at them. The police, under the guidance of the rule of law, are instructed to inflict the minimum necessary force to enact peace. Also, they have an incentive to de-escalate any interaction. Any time someone is enforcing rules on another person there is a potential for reactive violence. By escalating an interaction an officer increases the likelihood that they will become injured or killed. 

Or is it due to a hierarchical rule? As in, the lower level enforcers are only allowed so much power. Whereas the real power to sentence is in the judge's hands. The elite group of, hopefully, intelligent people who have the power to kill. (If the state has a death sentence.)

I believe that in the past the rule of law was much less adhered to, not that it is overly adhered to today. Also, enforcers of the rules would have more leeway and flexibility to enforce and enact justice as they saw fit. They might just hang someone on the spot. Kill them without any words spoken. So long as the sentence was carried out it didn't matter so much how. 

Is it a way to appease the masses? By creating a large hierarchical structure that dictates procedures and rules the burden of power is diminished. Having judges, juries, and law enforcement agencies all involved with enacting justice any mistakes can be recognized and corrected as opposed to a dictatorship, where one person is in charge of all acts of justice and therefore is either allowed to continue their reign or they are ousted, one way or another.

If people are allowed to enact justice on their own like vigilantes and a mistake is made the person may never be found, which satisfies no one, or, even if they are caught, we may never know the truth as the other person is dead and can not defend themselves.

Back to uncertainty, if someone watches someone murdered there is a good chance that within a short period of time they might be able to recognize them as the attacker but the lesson from so many inaccurate eyewitness testimonies is that one can't always trust their own recollections. So the uncertainty principle should be accounted for in the personal case as well. 

So how can we determine certainty? What if you are certain that you know the killer's face so you find them and kill them just to find out that the person you killed is the twin of the actual killer. This is a rare case and one would have to be convinced that the killer had a twin and that is plausible that you killed the wrong one. In a normal case, we have evidence, argumentation, and consensus to take on the task of providing relative certainty.  

DNA and other forensic sciences have made a great deal of progress in the pursuit of certainty scientists are not perfect. Cameras and other recording devices have done some work here as well even though they can be doctored. Lawyers attempt to plead the case of each party and we trust reason through argumentation to win the day. We trust that judges know the law and will consider the case objectively, without prior judgments or prejudices. (Not perfect either.)

Are juries a good idea? If it is a truly random set of people who end up on a jury then the odds of getting someone with a below average IQ is very high. The odds that the jurors will not have some prejudice against the defendant or prosecutor is slim to none. Most people have a rudimentary understanding of the law at best. Many people have a hard time paying attention. People are vindictive, jealous, overly agreeable, easily confused and distracted by sex. But when a jury convicts someone we can blame them and since they all agreed there is a consensus. They represent the public and act as a kind of intellectual microcosm of the society's "will".

One solution is to mix the jury concept with the judge concept and create a random selection of three judges to oversee all cases above a certain level. Less significant cases would be overseen by a single judge where appeals would allow for second opinions and oversight. In more significant cases, especially violent ones, the three-judge panel would decide the case and appeals would be taken straight to the federal level where three judges would oversee the appeal. For this system to work there would have to be either more judges, less litigation, or a combination of both. 

*

The system can't be perfect but how do we minimize its flaws?

How many people are we willing to wrongfully punish and how many people will we let go who should be punished? How many people are rightfully accused and rightfully punished? How many are rightfully accused but wrongfully punished? The justice system is a reflection of society's attempts to answer these questions. Throw in some corruption, ignorance, and prejudice and you have the idiosyncratic character of a society's justice system. 

The American system seems to have become bloated and mismanaged and has created corruption of certain aspects of the justice system. Namely, too many laws creating too much wasted litigation and punishment. Crimes are invented and rarely discarded but when a law is discarded the real victims are those who were rightfully imprisoned at the time but who are now suffering the consequences of the punishment for a crime that is no longer deemed wrong.

30 Days of Fiction: 21

IN a car dressed in black a man sat, or nearly sat, as what he was actually doing was bouncing up and down on the seat. His eyes starred forward never blinking. His hands clutched the steering wheel as if it were the only thing keeping him from flying out of the moonroof and into the sky. 'Come on, Come on,' he thought as he watched the house on the corner with the one light on in its upstairs window. He was the moth to the light's flame and just as the light went black so did the man stop bouncing. His grip slowly released from his anchor and his hands took on a new task. His face went serious as the mask came down.

 The door opened without a sound and closed without a peep. He stood at the front door for a moment admiring its ornate wooden artwork. He felt the grooves in the wood for what felt like forever before hopping the fence designed to keep out small dogs. He was not a small dog but instead, a large hungry cat pouncing into the backyard where the glass on the back sliding doors was only held together by tape and boards. It had been the victim of a senseless act of vandalism the evening prior. Unfortunately for this cat, there was another animal waiting for its prey in that very yard.

The cat never made it in the house but was instead sitting in a chair feeling the pain from both his head and his wrists. He looked down at them to find that they were connected to the arms of his new chair with steel handcuffs made all too tight for his liking. The dim lighting only revealed a few details as he looked around the room. Brick walls all around, stairs leading upward off in the distance, one all too powerful light that blinded anyone who looked directly at it as one might do if they were confused about their situation.

As his eyes adjusted from to the darkness he saw another thing. It was a dimly visible shape of a large podium or desk. Just then an overhead light flashed on and a door could be heard from somewhere off in the distance. The stairs ached under the weight of the loud footsteps descending them and soon another figure could be seen. He wore a long black judge's cloak and was eating a small orange as he came into the view of the man in the chair and then, without looking over, took his place behind the tall desk.

They stared at each other without speaking. One with wide eyes that didn't blink and one with eyes that seemed to have no other concern than of the orange he was eating.

"Who are you," the man in the cuffs asked calmly.

The man continued to eat his orange.

"You're not going to like how this turns out," the cat said sternly with all sincerity and seriousness.

After the final slice orange matter was devoured, a wet wipe was pulled out of a nearby drawer and the man cleaned his hands and mouth, still staring at the man making threats. His hand disappeared into a drawer and as the hand came back into view a large wood gavel could be seen but in an instant, it was being slammed into the desk.

CLACK! CLACK! CLACK!

The gavel banged down reverberating around the small stone room like a thunderstorm.

"You, Albert May Hughes, are accused of committing the following offenses on the date of June 1st, 2018: trespassing, breaking and entering, burglary, and mayhem," the Judge said with authority.

"What," Albert attempted a rebuttal.

"AND, the following offenses on today's date June 15th, 2018: trespassing, attempted burglary and general mayhem. How do you plead," the Judge asked.

"Fuck off," Albery replied abruptly, "What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't do shit. You can't do this. Who the fuck are you?"

"You are Albert May Hughes of Salt Lake City, Utah. Are you not," the Judge asked.

"What," Albert asked and then continued, "Well, I mean, yes, that's my name but how do you..."

He couldn't finish before the Judge broke in, "Alright then, how do you plead?"

"Not fucking guilty, obviously," Albert said, starting to play along, not sure where this was leading.

"It is noted. You have five minutes to begin your defense. If you can not produce a reasonable defense within those five minutes you will be deemed guilty of all charges and sentenced accordingly," the Judge explained dispassionately.

"What," Albert said still quite confused.

"You have five minutes to explain yourself starting now," the Judge said looking at his watch and then back at Albert.

"Uh, fuck. Ok. You said I was robbing someone on June 1st," he asked but was met with only silence as the judge stared back at him. "Ok, that's easy, I was out of town visiting my friend in Vegas that weekend. Let me call them and they will tell you everything."

The Judge did not reply.

"Fuck you man! I was out of town. My friend will confirm it. We were in Vegas all weekend getting fucked up!" Albert said as sweat poured down his face. "Come on!"

"And what about tonight, do you have any explanation?" The Judge asked.

"Uh, uh," Albert stumbled over his words.

"And what about these?" the Judge asked, holding up large black and white printed photos. One Albert sitting in a car at night, another of Albert putting on a mask inside the car, another of Albert walking up to a house, a photo from behind the house where could be seen entering a broken out back sliding door, one of him leaving the same house with a bag. Then he showed him a couple photos taken from that night just before he had been taken to the basement.

"That's not me," he exclaimed. "Fuck you!" Albert was less than calm now and began the rage against his bondage. The Judge simply watched as Albert struggled and then gave up.

"You have failed to defend yourself against these charges. Myself having witnessed you committing all of these crimes deem you guilty on all charges," the Judge said as Albert lifted his defeated head.

"What now," he asked meekly.

The Judge stood up, walked out from behind the desk and knelt in front of Albert as to look him in the eyes.

"Now the sentencing," the Judge said with a slight smile just before plunging a needle into Albert's neck, rendering him unconscious once again.

Albert opened his eyes slowly as the bright sun started to leak in where he found himself unable to move his limbs. He looked down to see the tops of cars rushing past him at an alarming rate. His heart began to race as he realized where he was.

From the perspective of the oncoming drivers passing under the bridge, he looked like a kind of living graffiti. A naked man spread out against the cold concrete of the overpass with the words thief written many times and in many colors all over his body. Soon, the police would take him down and find the photographs that were in an envelope duct-taped to his chest and the news would report that a new vigilante was out there "cleaning up the streets".

Restitution Then and Now

America made a costly compromise in allowing slavery but I believe that they believed that it was the best way to compete with other large countries. When they decided to end slavery and rightly so they should have paid restitution to the aggrieved parties, both the slaves and slave owners. In my mind, the slave owners would not get nearly what the slaves would but just enough to recognize that the government is to blame for the hardship that will ensue*. 

The problem is that the government didn't do enough to own their responsibility for slavery and to make it right when they could have. The problem is that with time restitution becomes impossible to calculate. When the aggrieved party is deceased who should the money go to? Their children? And in what amount? And what can people now do with random amounts of money thrown at them for no reason? This is what the government did with welfare and that isn't working out very well. The government should have treated freed slaves as citizens who are wrongfully imprisoned and paid as a lump sum or periodic payment but with terms and conditions. Such as the money ends with the individual. It would not be welfare for all but specific restitution for a specific person for a specific crime inflicted on them.

What should happen if you are taken out of your home and enslaved today? When you are freed it would be reasonable to allow you to sue for damages in restitution and the kidnapper would be held accountable. They would be jailed but the problem comes when your government is the kidnapper. You can try to sack members of the government or the government in whole but they are a loyal crew and not easily other thrown. It may be cost many lives to cause an effective coo and in the end, there have been no real solutions to the issue and measures taken to ensure it doesn't happen again.

So the peaceful way to hold the government accountable is to have them pay for their crimes in restitution. The downside to this is that the cost to the government due to this kind of grievance is really the cost of the people through taxes or debt.

If the government is to act as the countries ultimate leadership then it must take responsibility for everything that occurs within its scope of control. In the modern state, this means that when it unjustly imprisons people for crimes that should never have been crimes, such as marijuana possession, and if that crime is decriminalized, they should release those whose crimes were only that, and then pay restitution in an amount that is reasonable based on what an average person in that city would have made plus a penalty fee paid from the personal pockets of the tribe that caused it, the politicians. This might incentivize the government from taking laws more seriously or it might incentivize them to never change laws. I am not sure. 

Here is the last problem I see in regards to restitution now for slavery back then in the form of racially based special programs. I don't think it can be done logically, financially or effectively and so the crimes of the past must remain in the past. There are plenty of new crimes that we should hold the government accountable for. If the government displays some Extreme Ownership (as described by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin's book by that name) as a foundational guiding standard then we might see real change and real leadership from the government.

To explain the previous paragraph:

It is not logical because it is too far removed from its original recipients and too complicated to make work. It is not financially possible due to the same reasons and due to inflation, current living conditions and the massive population that exists compared to those originally aggrieved. Either you would have to spread the money too thin or too thick on those that would have gained from it had it been distributed thoughtfully in the past. It wouldn't be effective for same reasons.

And of all the descendants on either side of the issue whom would be to blame and whom would be entitled to compensation? In mind, it is either all descendants, 1 descendant or none. This is all hypothetical and really just an exercise in thinking about restorative justice, I suppose. I do not think that anyone is actually promoting giving restitution now to descendants of people who were enslaved. Maybe someone is but I doubt it is more than a few people. This is not a debate against a real opponent. It is just a thought experiment about what can be done to ensure that African Americans feel that their government is on their side just as it is on the side of all its citizens. 

The government has done what it will do about slavery and the Native American conquering (as another example of complicated political crimes), and it does seem that if it is too late for restitution for slavery so I am not sure what else the government can do to appease the descendants of the aggrieved.  I certainly do not see the government succeeding in unifying the country as a citizenry that works together toward a common cause.

I also see many people blaming others for their problems and not taking it on themselves to be successful. I see people who want to use the government to enact their self-interested justice instead of holding the government accountable for its crimes. It also seems that people forget the difference between the private and governmental sectors as more wish to adopt a governmental control over all aspects of life. I do not see people working to come up with counters to power run amock and remembering to keep freedoms from being lost in the chaos. 

*Revision on 6/29/2018: Slave owners that profited from slavery should not receive compensation for losing their slaves because they have already benefited so much. I suppose I just wanted a symbol of responsibility from the government. It is not the fault of the slave owner that they were able to own slaves, as the government allowed and facilitated it and I don't know how to justify taking the money from the slave owners to pay the restitution because they did nothing illegal at the time. They certainly benefited from something immoral but at the time was not seen as immoral by many. 

I Don't Relate to Racial Solidarity

After watching the newest stand up special by Dave Chappelle I realized that while I understand why there is racial solidarity among many black Americans I will never really understand what it is like to share a collective burden with those that share my skin color. I respect Dave Chappelle and find him to be very intelligent and exceptionally funny so I had to ask myself, "why does he fight for his race?"

If I think about it I can see why the potential for solidarity amongst black people in America is so strong. This is due to two main factors; the history of slavery and their proportion in the population. Even today the history of slavery seems to be on the mind of the majority of black people, especially in the generation that is attempting to go out into the world for the first time. Those two aspects seem to combine to produce a unique solidarity among many black people and it is nearly impossible for me to relate to as a white person in America.

When you grow up and see others that look like yourself you gravitate toward them. If you are a minority it is easy to see the one or two others like you in a school classroom and because you already have something in common you can group up with them with little effort. If you are white and most of the other kids are white then you have to come up with other characteristics to justify affiliation. An immediate characteristic that divides groups, other than race, is sex. Boys tend to group up with boys and girls with girls. Or you might group up based on economic class, shared homerooms, sports, clubs, religion, neighborliness, or a myriad of other factors. I think most of my friends growing up were found in sports, religion, and neighborliness.

I can't truly understand what it would be like for a minority child going to school and dealing with life. I don't know what it is like to so quickly be identified as less common, less understood, and less represented by the general population. To be thrust into a historical environment that is tainted with injustice and resentment and not knowing exactly where you fit into all of it.

I can imagine a young black student learning about American's history of slavery and racial violence. The young man seeing the poverty and violence in black communities and not knowing what to do or how to help. Seeing the white group as "in charge" or oppressive. The funny thing is that most white people do not give a fuck about white people or keeping the race going. We just don't think about it. There are so many white people running around and most are ethnic mutts so racial identity just doesn't show up until you start to learn about it on the news and on social media. Everything is Black this and White that and you have to sit back and think, "what the fuck are they talking about?" because you don't actually understand what it is like to care about your color or the people that share that color.

I can see that when you are in a minority group you know a larger percentage of that group's total population and you take on more responsibility to represent that population. This kind of group identity is reinforced and fostered in conversations that people have day to day. If you can be a champion for your group you can garner significance in your own mind and you may be rewarded by your group for acting in a way that bolsters your group's position. The critical question is whether it is actually significant and worthwhile. To what end?

When I was growing up and I hung out with my friends we never talked about color. We never talked about how we had that in common because there was nothing to say about it. I didn't know the ethnicities of my friends and I didn't care. I remember talking about how I was a jew but I was one of the only jews in my small town and we didn't practice Judaism so I didn't hang out with other jews. I suppose if I had I might have talked about what it was like being a Jew. I did have a period of time where I felt like I was Jewish. I learned about the history of the Jews and I felt a connection to all of it. I wore a yarmulke to school, I watched a lot of World War II stuff, I went to the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC and I thought that it all mattered.

As I thought about it more I realized that the Jewish people didn't care about me and that I had no right to take credit for anything that I didn't do. I was never enslaved or persecuted other than by those around me and the government I was born under. No Jews knew I existed or cared that I cared about their group. What benefit was it for me to identify as Jewish anyway? It seems that the benefit is only in the continuation of an ideology based on race and religion and not to the individuals that prop it up. At least not in secular America. In the past, it was essential that groups maintain power in order to defend against groups and maybe that is what the black community is expressing with Black Lives Matter and the like.

If the goal is to create peace then harboring and sustaining modes of thinking that divide peoples will have the opposite outcome. If the goal is racial superiority then, by all means, stick to maintaining the significance of your racial identity. If the goal is legal equality and your race is not being treated equally by the law then you will find allies from many groups as legal equality benefits humanity as a whole. If the goal is to have equal outcomes for all people then you will have to work hard to turn us all into identical robots and even then the uncertainty of life will emerge and bewilder your delusional mind.

You don't get to take credit for a group's virtue, only your own. If you identify with a group then you have to take on all the good and bad connotations that identity entails. If you see yourself as a white person then you have to take on all the good and bad done by white people but that is an impossible task and one that can only lead to dysfunction and pain. Take responsibility for yourself, be a part of groups that produce positive results for humanity, and be wary of those that take on the guilt and pain of others.

I do not want to dismiss the plight and angst of anyone just because I don't relate to it, so I try to understand it from their perspective and I think I understand how it would be enticing and rewarding to defend one's racial group. I genuinely do not have a group, other than my loved ones, that I would fight for at this time and I think that America is one of the best places to live. The future that I hope for is not one marked by group divisions but of individual peace, trade, and collaboration but there are still battles to be fought and it seems that humanity will continue to progress toward prosperity because of those battles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1VhigA7o88