Friday, April 7, 2023

Lady Justice Isn't Blind, She's Just Turned Her Head So We Can't See Her Tears

The concept of justice combined with fairness has been one of the foundation stones of Western civilization. In Greek mythology Dike (Die-kee) was the goddess of justice, moral order and fair judgment. Justice was believed to be a transcendent universal ideal.

It's unfortunate when ideals and reality are so distant from one another. In this country the legal system, as it was conceived, was intended to be fair and just. Trials were conducted to reveal what happened and determine what was true so that justice (accountability) could be served.

Artwork and statues depicting Lady Justice will show scales, a sword and usually--but not always--a blindfold, the intention being to convey the idea of justice being blind, a symbol of impartiality. In other words, all are equal under the law.

Today, there are few so naive as to believe this is so. Those with money can obtain better attorneys so that all too often the truth suffers while the better legal team wins. Justice, all too often, is a game. 

Another facet of today's legal shenanigans is the use of public opinion to pressure decisions. Truth again suffers as legal teams frame their stories to get favorable support for their side of an argument. We seldom get an accurate picture. Once again, the one who controls the narrative controls the people.

* * * 

My father sat on a jury once, and I myself served on a grand jury for a season once. My dad said that after both sides testified, it was impossible to know which one was lying, yet also impossible for both sides to be telling the truth. Their stories were contradictory.

In my personal grand jury experience, as the first side presented its case things were so cut and dried I couldn't help but ask myself, "Why are we here?" Initially, my vote would have unquestionably been, "Guilty!" But as the defense presented witness after witness, we the jury saw very clearly the the incident was far more complicated than initially presented. Over time it became clear that our first impressions were wholly at odds with the facts of the case. By the end of the second day there was a call for a decision. Unfortunately, everyone was aware if we did not make a decision at that time we'd all have to come back the next day. In retrospect, there was a subtle pressure to go along with the mood of the moment, which was compelling. The results of that vote were 23 "Not Guilty" and one abstain. I've occasionally wondered what might have happened had we slept on it.

* * * 

Why the Rule of Law is Important

This is a different take on the stories above. It has to do with unfettered crime. When cities fail to deal with crime so that there are consequences for bad behavior, everyone suffers.

If we fail to uphold the rule of law, we risk descending into chaos and anarchy. Without the rule of law, there is no way to ensure that people will obey the law or that those who break the law will be held accountable. This can lead to a breakdown in order and a rise in crime.

The rule of law is essential for a civilized society. It provides a framework for resolving disputes and ensuring that everyone is treated fairly. Without the rule of law, people would be free to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences. This would create a society dominated by bullies, where people were constantly at risk of being harmed or taken advantage of.

The rule of law is also important for economic development. Businesses need to be able to operate in a predictable environment with clear rules and regulations. If the rule of law is not upheld, businesses will be less likely to invest and create jobs.*

In conclusion, the rule of law is essential for a civilized society and for economic development. If we fail to uphold the rule of law, we risk descending into chaos and anarchy.

* * *

* See: Exodus from Crime-Ridden High Cost Cities Continues Crime Impacts Corporate Relocations Boeing Exits Chicago as City Wrestles with Crime, Exodus

1 comment:

  1. I was called for jury duty one time, about in 2002 or 2003. It was a murder case.
    One of the questions they asked us was: "If anyone feels that they might tend to not believe the testimony of law enforcement, please raise your hand."
    I raised my hand.
    They told me that I should say why, but that if I didn't feel comfortable saying why in front of everyone, I could go "in chambers" with the judge and the two opposing attorneys.
    So I did, and I told them about the illegal armed raid on my place in 1998.
    The judge said, "That must have been terrifying!"
    I said, "Yes, it was."
    Anyway, I was deselected from jury duty. At the time, I sure could have used the money, but I didn't think it would have been right to pretend that I believe that law enforcement is above lying, when my experience was 180 degrees opposite.

    ReplyDelete