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: 22

"Can you tell me what happened on the night of July 5th, Mr. Meeks," a lawyer named Jim asked a very sweaty man named Walter Meeks who sat in the witness seat looking up into the rafters. Walter was now staring off into space and looking nervous with the audience's gaze bearing down on him like a dozen firehoses trying to put out a raging fire.

"Mr. Meeks," the kind looking judge leaned toward Walter and calmly yet authoritatively asked, "Mr. Meeks, can you please tell us what happened on July 5th? Tell us about what occurred at your house that led us all to be here."

With that, Walter perked up, focused on the lawyer who had asked the original question and began, "I'm sorry. I haven't slept in a few days. It's actually fairly straightforward now that I have had some time to think about it. I was attacked by three armed men who broke into my house intent on doing my family harm. They were not there to simply steal our things. I know this because they must have seen our cars outside and most likely had cased my house to get to know what we had, who we were and when we would be there or not."

Walter paused for a moment to look around at the audience whose attention was wrapped.

He continued, "I was asleep in bed with my wife, our 9-year-old son Erik was in the room next door when I woke up and heard someone in the house. I woke my wife up, who wanted to get our son but it sounded like they were already in the house and would have heard if we went for him then. I got my Glock 17 out of my safe and told her to go into the bathroom and call 911. I had to get my son, so I slowly opened the door to the hall and could see that Erik's door was still shut. I looked through the crack in the door and could see a man in a mask with a pistol in one hand coming up the stairs. I knew I had no choice. I opened the door, leaned out on my side and shot him three times in the chest."

Walter's head bowed as he talked about killing the first robber, visibly shaken by recounting the night.

"What happened next," Jim asked when Walter had remained silent for too many moments.

"It was so loud," Mr. Meeks said looking back at the lawyer and the audience. He continued, "I got up and rushed into Erik's room but he wasn't in there. I panicked and started calling his name softly. 'Erik, Erik' I called and then he came out from under the bed and I grabbed him. 'It was so loud' he said as I started for the door. I went to open the door but as I did they started shooting at the door. I jumped back and had Erik hide under the bed again. I lay on my back with my gun trained on the door ready to shoot but they didn't come. Instead, I heard them rush into my bedroom, where my wife was. I got up immediately and rushed after them. I opened the door and saw two men but then I heard shots. At least 4 of 5 loud bangs and I saw my wife holding her Glock 19 and one of the men goes down. The second one is in front of me so I put my gun up to the back of his head and fire one shot."

Walter goes back to staring at the rafters, this time slightly rocking back and forth.

"What happened after that," the judge interjected the silent fog filling the room.

Mr. Meeks slowly turned his head and looked down at the floor before saying, "My wife and I got our son, put our guns on the bed, went downstairs and waited for the police."

"Is that everything Mr. Meeks," asked the judge.

"Yes," Mr. Meeks said softly without looking up.

"Alright, with that we will take a short recess and the prosecution will begin their cross-examination in 1 hour," the judge said before hitting his gavel.

One hour later the judge was sitting behind his bench, the lawyers were behind their desks, Walter Meeks was in the witness chair, and the audience started filing in the room. After a few moments of murmurs and shuffling the gavel struck again.

"Alright, the prosecution will now cross-examine the witness," the judge said as the state's prosecuting attorney slowly made their way up to the witness.

Walter sat in his chair, this time focused on the attorney as they meandered around the room, stopped at the juror box for a moment and then finally came up to him.

"How long have you owned a gun, Mr. Meeks," the attorney asked.

"Objection, relevance," Walter's lawyer said calmly.

"I just started your honor, I have to start somewhere," the attorney pleaded with the judge.

"Overruled, answer the question please," the judge said.

"I've been shooting most of my life, my dad taught us how to shoot, " Walter began but was cut off.

"Answer the question, how long have you owned the gun that you used to shoot two men. One, in the back of the head," the attorney said with disdain.

"Two years," Mr. Meeks replied looking up at the ceiling.

"And where did you buy that gun," the attorney asked.

"Objection, relevance," Walter's attorney said without looking up.

"I'm getting there, your honor," the attorney explained.

"Overruled," the judge said looking at Mr. Meeks.

"I bought it from a friend," Walter replied.

"Why did you buy it from a friend and not at a store," the attorney asked.

"Objection, why does it matter how my client acquired the gun he used to defend his family," Walter's lawyer said, now fully annoyed.

"What is the point of this, Ben," the judge asked the attorney.

"It goes to the defendant's mental state during the incident and his violent nature," the attorney answered confidently.

"Permission to approach the bench," Walter's lawyer asked already rising out of his chair.

The judge gestured the two suit-wearing men to him and they began to talk for a moment. Walter stared at the ceiling while they talked and when they finished the lawyer sat back down and Ben walked back over to the witness.

"Have you ever been committed to a psychiatric ward," Ben asked.

Mr. Meeks slowly brought his gaze back down to earth, looked up at the judge pleadingly, but when he saw no reprieve, he answered, "yes."

"How many times, Mr. Meeks," the attorney asked while pacing around the room.

"Three, times," Walter answered.

"Can you tell us about when and why you were taken to a psychiatric ward three times, Mr. Meeks," Ben asked as he stopped at the jury box to rest and look over the jury.

"Once when I was 14, once when I was 17 and once when I was 23," Walter said and then paused before continuing, "The first time I got into a fight with another boy at school. The second time I jumped out of a moving vehicle, and the last time I was..." he couldn't finish the sentence and looked down.

"Please continue, Mr. Meeks, what happened when you were 23," the judge asked with a soft tone.

"I, uh," he stuttered, "I was manic and went walking around the city at night with a 22 rifle. I guess I shot it off a few times, and then I was taken into custody."

"You aren't allowed to own a gun are you," the attorney asked, but before Mr. Meeks could answer he said, "and when you were 14, that fight you were in, you bit the other boy's finger off, didn't you?"

"Objection, badgering," Walter's lawyer interjected.

"Sustained," the judge said.

"I'll rephrase the question," the attorney replied and with a smile asked, "Are you allowed to own a gun in this state, Mr. Meeks?"

"No," Walter answered softly.

"And you take medication for manic depression, bi-polar, and schizophrenia, is that correct," Ben asked.

Walter looked over at his lawyer who nodded for him to answer.

"Yes," Walter replied.

The attorney leaned up against the witness stand and leaned over to ask, "And you enjoyed shooting that man in the back of the head and watching his brains splatter all over the wall, didn't you?"

"Objection," Walter's lawyer exclaimed and stood up astounded at the attorney's tactics.

"Sustained," the judge said and added, "Do not answer that Mr. Meeks. That was highly unprofessional and if it happens again you will be done here."

Walter was staring at the ceiling and rocking back and forth dramatically now as the judge banged his gavel to silence the uproar in the audience. A few moments past before the judge announced to the court that they would have another 30-minute recess where he would tell the jury how to deal with the most recent information and speak with the lawyers in his chambers.

45 minutes later the courtroom was filled and the gavel struck again marking the beginning of the next set of arguments.

"Does the prosecution have anything more," the judged asked.

"Not at this time, the witness is yours," Ben replied.

"Do you wish to redirect," the judge asked looking at Walter's lawyer.

"Yes, I do your honor," he said before standing up and walking over the Walter who was not looking at the ground or ceiling at the moment but directly forward. He asked, "do you feel that you did everything a reasonable person would do in the situation you were in?"

"Absolutely, I had no choice," Walter said confidently.

"And do you feel that your mental state was clear and focused during the events that night," the lawyer asked.

"Yes, sir. I take my meds, and they work for me. I don't know what else I can say," he said with tears starting to come down his face.

"Thank you, Walter," the lawyer said before adding, "No further questions, your honor."

"You may take a seat next to your lawyer Walter," the judge said gesturing for Walter to leave the witness stand.

After a moment he continued, "The prosecution will now make their closing statements, followed by the defense."

Ben stood up swiftly and strolled toward the jury to begin his monologue, "I am not here to tell you that Mr. Meeks is an evil man. Or that he shouldn't have defended himself. What a horrible situation he was in. But he admits that he illegally obtained a firearm and he has a history of violence. He has an unstable mind and engaged in a level of violence that goes beyond self-defense. His wife owned a gun legally so why did he need one? Because he wanted to use it! He pushed the barrel into the back of a man's head and pulled the trigger. Could you do that? I know I couldn't, and we can not afford to have a man like that out on our streets. Who knows if his medication will continue to work? And what he is capable of when they stop working?" He finished his speech pointing at Mr. Meeks and then sat back down at his desk.

"The defense will make it's closing statements," the judge explained.

Walter's lawyer shuffled some papers before standing up. He too strolled over to the jury and said, "This man was put into the worst possible situation anyone could ever deal with. Three armed men, in masks, broke into his house intent on who knows what kind of horrific acts, and he defended himself and his family. It's that simple. The prosecution wants to make him out to be a danger to society but from what I see he is exactly the kind of person I would want living next door. Someone who admits their faults; learns from them and acts heroically in the face of overwhelming terror. The prosecution wants you to be distracted by irrelevant details about his past, and the gun he used. He wasn't supposed to have a gun but thank God he did because his child and wife are alive because of it. So, when you go into that room to deliberate just ask yourselves one question, 'What would I do to save the ones I love?"

Walter's lawyer concluded his speech and sat back down. The judge told the bailiff to take the jury to deliberate and as the last of the jurors left the room silence fell on the court. 

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. 

Asshole Ideologies

Some causes are worth fighting and dying for, but some causes are merely justifications for assholes to group together to enact their hatred on others. They resent humanity, life and their own lack of worth so they project their insecurities and malice outward to those their cause deems evil. And in the name of slaying the "evil" they become evil. Their misguided morality leads them to cause chaos and harm to the innocent and guilty alike. They're not guided by reasonable moral principles but instead they lash out at their enemies whom they have labeled their enemy based on superficial reasons. They hate those that do not share their race, gender, political affiliation, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation and boil all of ethics into an use vs them race to the grave.

As the violence escalates and ideologies clash it is up to individuals to decide whether or not they will be an asshole today. What's an asshole you ask?

Assholes wear masks because they do not want to be responsible for their actions. Assholes go to pick a fight when the other person clearly doesn't want one. Assholes blow up civilians because they know that if they were to enact their irrational war on their true enemy they would lose in a second. Assholes shoot drive cars into crowds hoping to hurt and kill people with signs. Assholes go around hating on people instead of building them up or ignoring them. Assholes don't negotiate. Assholes sign away lives in wars for selfish and psychotic reasons. Assholes sign laws into place for the sake of votes alone, neglecting philosophical principles and decency.

Assholes steal your stereo face plate but leave the stereo. You stupid mother fuckers!

Ideologies that include justifications for violence based on superficial features are problematic for anyone interested in peace.

What if all the sentences for criminals were voted on by large numbers of people online? After a trial takes place and someone is found guilty, the public is given a set of choices for sentencing and the outcome is determined by a mix of public vote and judge consensus. Certified judges would get paid to listen in on the trials and determine whether or not the public came to an acceptable decision. If the public were to write-in a sentence that was outrageous then the judges would reject the decision and it would go up again or be put to a smaller judgement pool of deciders. I think the American public would eat this idea up in a second.

That last paragraph aside I wonder how I would instill my value system in others if I could. How would I justify my moral presuppositions? How would I convince someone that they are wrong when they believe so passionately that what they are doing is right. So much so that they are willing to kill and/or die to prove it? I do know that it is impossible to have the kinds of conversations that lead humans toward more peace when you are being bombed, poisoned, bashed, stabbed, gassed or otherwise threatened by someone else's ideological battle ax.

Maybe I just haven't seen enough strife or misery in my life to feel the need for the hopeful embrace of ideological warfare but I think that part of what has lead to more and more people living lives free from violence comes from sticking to universal moral principles such as respect for property rights which includes bodily rights. It's not that you punish someone for breaking laws but that you protect those worth protecting from those that would take their property, life or general freedom.

Thoughts on Postmodernism

If Postmodernism can be characterized as a philosophy predicated on the denial of logic, science and reason, then by what standard do they substantiate their claims?

Without a standard measurement tool to judge the validity of a claim all claims are valid, therefore, in order to decide which claim should be followed one must rely on some form of scheme or model that becomes a mechanism to reach an ideal outcome.

There have been no better tools for exacting change in the world than those of the logical and scientific kind.

Why should I believe that logic, debate, math, science and capitalism are only tools of "the oppressor" without appealing to some attempt at a logical argument?

You can't just say that it is true because you say it's true. Then anything anyone said could be true. "That's a rock," one could say. "That's a tree," another might say. But if they are both pointing at the same thing and have distinct definitions of the words rock and tree, then both cannot be true. If there is any kind of truth it would be one that helped people navigate the differences between a rock and a tree.

The degree to which two people can communicate honesty and accurately is related to the degree to which they agree on the definitions of the words they use. In other words, the less agreement in definitions the more communication breaks down, and without rational discourse the only options left are fight, flight or submit.

If one person defines freedom as freedom to forcing others to act and another person defines freedom as the freedom from other people's actions and another defines freedom as freedom to act then a discussion on freedom between these people will most likely become contentious. Especially because they all prescribe their own boundaries of the others' precious freedoms.

In order to persuade others, in a world where the value of intelligence is increasing, you would be advised to utilize the tools of the intelligent.

A reason that Postmodern believers are achieving so much at certain Universities, in that they are achieving violence, suppression, destruction, etc., is because that type of behavior is strictly prohibited in the normal world outside certain Universities. The Universities that allow for mayhem to occur on their campuses are not setting a good example to their students about how the real world works.

In the real, working world, you don't get to foist your opinions on others by way of force. In order to succeed in a free market economy you have to get along and cooperate with others. If you want to use force then you will be met with force and if you break the law you will be met with an unbalanced return of force in order to swiftly punish those that cause violence.

If a Postmodernist were to propose laws that infringe on other's freedoms then they will be making the claim that their laws are just and lead to some ideal outcome. Luckily there is a mechanism for determining how strong this statement is. Unluckily though, the mechanism is logic, reason, science, debate and all the things Postmodernists believe are only tools of the oppressors.

Isn't someone who is currently oppressing others' freedoms, such as the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom from violence, a tool of the oppressor?

If you want to fight oppression then at least fight the real oppressor, the government, not fellow citizens trying to pay their rent and shit. Taxes, unjust acts, wrongful imprisonment, corruption, etc., all all products of the governments around the world. What mechanism is in place to squelch these indiscretions in the government? At least in capitalism one can opt out of supporting a business regime they find destructive and immoral.

If words can oppress then any words a Postmodernist says can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion.