Reflections of Me: Law. Justice. Not Always The Same
I have been reading a book, a novel of fiction, which has turned out to be rather good, if a bit difficult for me to read due to the author's penchant for combining narrative with character speech without using punctuation to separate. But, this is not a review of the novel. Rather, it is a portion of a paragraph which caught my attention, and may perhaps be one of the best descriptions of law I have ever read, or thought of.
" But William knew the law had as much to do with power as rightness. It was built by men for its own purpose, like a steam locomotive, and what was done with it was the work of men who had places to get to and schedules to keep. He thought of Foole. Of course there was a wrong side to the law.
He sometimes wondered if there was a right one. "
By Gaslight : A Novel
Author: Steven Price
Law. Basically, a set of rules for society to follow, laid out in print. As such, black and white. A set of rules allowing society to prosecute those whose behavior is a danger or a threat to society. Black and white. Right? Easy. Simple. A law is broken. Punish the guilty. How could anyone ever wonder if there was a right side to the law? Of course there is; if one breaks the law, that's the wrong side. Everyone else is on the right side. Right? End of discussion.
Or, is it? First, how does anyone know a law has been broken? There needs to be a victim, correct? In fact, that is the first clue the average person has to the fact a crime has been committed. Now, a investigation must take place, to discover who, exactly, committed the crime. Not our job. We have professions for that. In some cases, the culprit is caught in the commission of the act. Pretty simple, there. Don't even need a trial, just, lock 'em up! Only, now, what about Justice? What about: punishment?
After all, our system allows for the concept that the accused should always be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The burden of proving that guilt is supposed to always be on the prosecution, that is, those assigned to enforce, investigate, and establish just cause for a person to be the accused. Here is where it can get real complicated, where the gray areas begin to insert themselves between that black, and white. Where too often we may find that the concept of right versus wrong, black and white if you will, merge into a area that can, indeed, make some of us wonder if, despite there being a wrong side to the law, there is a right one?
This is where Justice can rear it's confusing little head. Justice. Just another word, one we have bastardized over the years to mean the same as law. We presume laws to be just, therefore, when law is being enforced and crime is punished, justice is done. But. Is it?
A law, by itself, is devoid of any emotional response. Either you break a law, or, you do not. Justice, however, evaluates emotion. Justice says, yes, a law may have been broken, but, why was it broken? How? Who broke it, and what circumstances lead up to the breaking of the law? And what punishment is appropriate to satisfy justice itself?
I'll take a look at some of our most well known laws, and maybe actually reach a point here. We know that murder, fraud, robbery, rape, and burglary are against the law. Under those headings, we have developed a multitude of other laws, covering less violent but nonetheless life-affecting crimes. Still, for guilt to be established, certain things have to be proved -- or, should be, but as we know, not always are.
So, let's look at one we all feel most familiar with: murder. The taking of, or causing events leading to the taking of, a life or lives. Obviously, a society cannot function if everyone can go around just killing people. Though there are some who think that should be perfectly ok. It's my opinion those folks wouldn't last 12 hours in such a environment, but, I digress. So, the taking of another life should receive the maximum penalty, if one applies the simple meaning of the law. For centuries, and even for most of our own Nation's existence, that penalty was death. Even as a youngster, I found that a bit hypocritical; after all, if the penalty for taking a life was death, then, whoever exacted that penalty would, ipso facto, be guilty of the same crime, and therefore--well, there ya go. We would all be killing each other. Somehow, while the law would be served, Justice would be left out in the cold, gazing on in horrified disbelief.
So, we have a Justice system; one that, allegedly, will determine the extent of the crime and the level of guilt of the accused ( who, it is to be remembered, is supposed to be innocent until guilt is proven 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' in a court of law ). Most defendants are counseled to request a trial by jury, a group of 'peers' who will listen to the witnesses, observe the evidence, and decide guilt or innocence ( I will abstain here from delivering my opinion of this process, one I consider far outdated in today's social media society ). So, first: it must be established IF the defendant actually committed the crime. Next: it must be determined if there was intent to do so, and if so, what was the level of intent? Last, it should be determined--if Justice is to be served--the effect the crime had upon those surviving. Legally, yes; murder is murder. Black and white. Under that aegis, I could argue that leaders of Nations who enter into wars with other Nations are guilty of murder. Right? Black and white: the intentional taking of lives. War itself is a war crime. But, again, I digress.
So, as we can see: it might be possible to engage in some activity that could cause the taking of a life. For example: defending oneself or one's loved ones from harm. Of course, a decision must also be reached as to the reasonableness of the response; for a average citizen, use of reasonable force can be met in a much less restricted manner than that of a trained police officer, but the principle remains the same. Generally, however, if one is in fear for their own life, and there is no reasonable avenue of escape, a verdict of self-defense is likely warranted. So, a murder has been committed, but, was it perhaps justified? Justice enters here, but Justice needs borders the same as law does. What might be a reasonable fear for one's life may well be unreasonable in the eyes of others.
But, how do we, as a society, define Justice? Are Justice and Humanity the same sides of the coin? What is Just and Fair to one person may be totally unreasonable to another. Who decides? Here, in the U.S.A., we elect lawmakers ( sometimes, we even do it intelligently. Or, perhaps, we just accidentally get it right? ) and hope they reflect our thinking. We hire, appoint or have appointed, or elect, people to carry out the adjudication and enforcement. Our track record is not exemplary. Too often, the results show the influence of bigotry, hatred, fear, greed, and overall lack of humanity. Yet, sometimes we get it right. I am of the opinion we should keep trying until 'sometimes' becomes 'all the time'. I am a strong believer in the theory that " better 3 guilty people go free than one innocent person be sent to prison".
I didn't always believe that. Besides, I sure want to know where the Hell those 3 guilty people are!
We have other laws, covering crimes both violent and non-violent. Although any activity that has a victim we might classify as violent. No one wants to be a victim, even if it is from a theft that occurred far from the victim's current location. Justice, then, has become the reason for classifying criminal activity, activity covered by laws, and the adjudicating of same. Let the punishment fit the crime is a phrase we often hear, and use ourselves. However, Justice requires said punishment also fit the intent, or reason, behind the crimes. We have reached a societal age, though, where we are finding that numbers, used in statistics, often overwhelm the system we have; where humanity is often sacrificed to justify the very existence of some institutions, where a fair and impartial hearing are often impossible, and where the existence even of some laws should be greatly questioned. For example: why do we need a 'hate crime' designation for a violent act? Violence, by it's very nature, is the result of hate, even if only fleeting. I see all violence as a hate crime. I understand the reasoning behind the classification, but, violence committed with intent should carry the same maximum punishment, regardless of the purpose behind the intent.
As usual, I have turned this brain-bomb into a essay. So be it. I could continue on, in the same vein, nearly forever. Still, that simple little paragraph within a novel I read only because I was looking for a good fiction book to read, got me thinking. Especially since my career involved so many years working somewhere within the system I write about. I had long ago come to the conclusion that some laws, truly, are simply extraneous, with entirely too much attention given to them, and entirely inappropriate punishments arbitrarily handed out for them. So, yes, I do believe that while there is certainly a wrong side of the law to be on, it can be very difficult to find a right side.
As always, if you made it here, thank you for reading. What I write are my opinions only, and are not endorsed by any person or entity I am aware of. Comments, as always, welcome. Provided they are free of profanity and not made with the intent of changing my opinion. Because I won't. Hey, I can be as stupid and stubborn as anyone!
" But William knew the law had as much to do with power as rightness. It was built by men for its own purpose, like a steam locomotive, and what was done with it was the work of men who had places to get to and schedules to keep. He thought of Foole. Of course there was a wrong side to the law.
He sometimes wondered if there was a right one. "
By Gaslight : A Novel
Author: Steven Price
Law. Basically, a set of rules for society to follow, laid out in print. As such, black and white. A set of rules allowing society to prosecute those whose behavior is a danger or a threat to society. Black and white. Right? Easy. Simple. A law is broken. Punish the guilty. How could anyone ever wonder if there was a right side to the law? Of course there is; if one breaks the law, that's the wrong side. Everyone else is on the right side. Right? End of discussion.
Or, is it? First, how does anyone know a law has been broken? There needs to be a victim, correct? In fact, that is the first clue the average person has to the fact a crime has been committed. Now, a investigation must take place, to discover who, exactly, committed the crime. Not our job. We have professions for that. In some cases, the culprit is caught in the commission of the act. Pretty simple, there. Don't even need a trial, just, lock 'em up! Only, now, what about Justice? What about: punishment?
After all, our system allows for the concept that the accused should always be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The burden of proving that guilt is supposed to always be on the prosecution, that is, those assigned to enforce, investigate, and establish just cause for a person to be the accused. Here is where it can get real complicated, where the gray areas begin to insert themselves between that black, and white. Where too often we may find that the concept of right versus wrong, black and white if you will, merge into a area that can, indeed, make some of us wonder if, despite there being a wrong side to the law, there is a right one?
This is where Justice can rear it's confusing little head. Justice. Just another word, one we have bastardized over the years to mean the same as law. We presume laws to be just, therefore, when law is being enforced and crime is punished, justice is done. But. Is it?
A law, by itself, is devoid of any emotional response. Either you break a law, or, you do not. Justice, however, evaluates emotion. Justice says, yes, a law may have been broken, but, why was it broken? How? Who broke it, and what circumstances lead up to the breaking of the law? And what punishment is appropriate to satisfy justice itself?
I'll take a look at some of our most well known laws, and maybe actually reach a point here. We know that murder, fraud, robbery, rape, and burglary are against the law. Under those headings, we have developed a multitude of other laws, covering less violent but nonetheless life-affecting crimes. Still, for guilt to be established, certain things have to be proved -- or, should be, but as we know, not always are.
So, let's look at one we all feel most familiar with: murder. The taking of, or causing events leading to the taking of, a life or lives. Obviously, a society cannot function if everyone can go around just killing people. Though there are some who think that should be perfectly ok. It's my opinion those folks wouldn't last 12 hours in such a environment, but, I digress. So, the taking of another life should receive the maximum penalty, if one applies the simple meaning of the law. For centuries, and even for most of our own Nation's existence, that penalty was death. Even as a youngster, I found that a bit hypocritical; after all, if the penalty for taking a life was death, then, whoever exacted that penalty would, ipso facto, be guilty of the same crime, and therefore--well, there ya go. We would all be killing each other. Somehow, while the law would be served, Justice would be left out in the cold, gazing on in horrified disbelief.
So, we have a Justice system; one that, allegedly, will determine the extent of the crime and the level of guilt of the accused ( who, it is to be remembered, is supposed to be innocent until guilt is proven 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' in a court of law ). Most defendants are counseled to request a trial by jury, a group of 'peers' who will listen to the witnesses, observe the evidence, and decide guilt or innocence ( I will abstain here from delivering my opinion of this process, one I consider far outdated in today's social media society ). So, first: it must be established IF the defendant actually committed the crime. Next: it must be determined if there was intent to do so, and if so, what was the level of intent? Last, it should be determined--if Justice is to be served--the effect the crime had upon those surviving. Legally, yes; murder is murder. Black and white. Under that aegis, I could argue that leaders of Nations who enter into wars with other Nations are guilty of murder. Right? Black and white: the intentional taking of lives. War itself is a war crime. But, again, I digress.
So, as we can see: it might be possible to engage in some activity that could cause the taking of a life. For example: defending oneself or one's loved ones from harm. Of course, a decision must also be reached as to the reasonableness of the response; for a average citizen, use of reasonable force can be met in a much less restricted manner than that of a trained police officer, but the principle remains the same. Generally, however, if one is in fear for their own life, and there is no reasonable avenue of escape, a verdict of self-defense is likely warranted. So, a murder has been committed, but, was it perhaps justified? Justice enters here, but Justice needs borders the same as law does. What might be a reasonable fear for one's life may well be unreasonable in the eyes of others.
But, how do we, as a society, define Justice? Are Justice and Humanity the same sides of the coin? What is Just and Fair to one person may be totally unreasonable to another. Who decides? Here, in the U.S.A., we elect lawmakers ( sometimes, we even do it intelligently. Or, perhaps, we just accidentally get it right? ) and hope they reflect our thinking. We hire, appoint or have appointed, or elect, people to carry out the adjudication and enforcement. Our track record is not exemplary. Too often, the results show the influence of bigotry, hatred, fear, greed, and overall lack of humanity. Yet, sometimes we get it right. I am of the opinion we should keep trying until 'sometimes' becomes 'all the time'. I am a strong believer in the theory that " better 3 guilty people go free than one innocent person be sent to prison".
I didn't always believe that. Besides, I sure want to know where the Hell those 3 guilty people are!
We have other laws, covering crimes both violent and non-violent. Although any activity that has a victim we might classify as violent. No one wants to be a victim, even if it is from a theft that occurred far from the victim's current location. Justice, then, has become the reason for classifying criminal activity, activity covered by laws, and the adjudicating of same. Let the punishment fit the crime is a phrase we often hear, and use ourselves. However, Justice requires said punishment also fit the intent, or reason, behind the crimes. We have reached a societal age, though, where we are finding that numbers, used in statistics, often overwhelm the system we have; where humanity is often sacrificed to justify the very existence of some institutions, where a fair and impartial hearing are often impossible, and where the existence even of some laws should be greatly questioned. For example: why do we need a 'hate crime' designation for a violent act? Violence, by it's very nature, is the result of hate, even if only fleeting. I see all violence as a hate crime. I understand the reasoning behind the classification, but, violence committed with intent should carry the same maximum punishment, regardless of the purpose behind the intent.
As usual, I have turned this brain-bomb into a essay. So be it. I could continue on, in the same vein, nearly forever. Still, that simple little paragraph within a novel I read only because I was looking for a good fiction book to read, got me thinking. Especially since my career involved so many years working somewhere within the system I write about. I had long ago come to the conclusion that some laws, truly, are simply extraneous, with entirely too much attention given to them, and entirely inappropriate punishments arbitrarily handed out for them. So, yes, I do believe that while there is certainly a wrong side of the law to be on, it can be very difficult to find a right side.
As always, if you made it here, thank you for reading. What I write are my opinions only, and are not endorsed by any person or entity I am aware of. Comments, as always, welcome. Provided they are free of profanity and not made with the intent of changing my opinion. Because I won't. Hey, I can be as stupid and stubborn as anyone!
Comments