As many of you know, sometimes I deviate from the herd and go my own direction. Sometimes I do this purposely and others in search for comments. This time is a little bit of both. Yesterday, Astrogirlkel told us about the recent SCOTUS changes to the Miranda rules. The general consensus (with two dissenting opines) was that this was a not so subtle erosion of our civil liberties. I disagreed some, but not go into depth. This idea has been swimming in my mind for some time.
When I was in Political Theory 101 (not the real title, but hey, let's keep it simple) I remember reading Plato's Republic. There really wasn't much coherent theory in that book, but a lot of individual situations that he used to make some points. One of my favorites was a discussion between Socrates and some others about the definition of justice. Socrates in his way didn't define, but just went about defining what it wasn't. He was really an ass in that way. However, the subject came to my mind when reading Astrogirlkel's piece yesterday.
Someone sued the Supreme Court because he admitted to a crime even though he had intended to remain silent. The question that I asked that went unanswered was whether he actually committed the crime. It seems that question usually gets lost in these exchanges. The Bill of Rights were installed to protect innocent people from an overbearing government hellbent on throwing them in jail. The immediate experience of the framers is particularly important. Charges could be trumped up and thrown without a speedy trial or even evidence. Thus, we have the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments.
The question that enters my mind is whether we are finding ways to keep bad people from going to jail or whether we are preventing good people from going to jail. Everyone has a story of a wrongfully accused person of going to jail. An overzealous prosecutor or a strong-armed cop overstep their bounds. I ask legitimately how often this occurs. How often does this occur in comparison with a guilty person getting out on a technicality?
As I have often said, I play Cheney's advocate on these occasions. No one wants to completely eliminate the right to catch one more person. The question is whether a clarification will help without irreperably harming individual's rights. I admit that I have never been arrested or questioned for a crime. Maybe that is why I have to treat this in an academic sense.
If people are unwilling to debate this further then I put forth the question in the title: how do you define justice? Since I would rather not be the Socrates type, I'll answer my own question. To me, justice happens when the guilty get appropriate punishments for their crimes and the innocent are protected from the guilty. Naturally, this opens up all kind of questions. What exactly is an appropriate punishment? How do we protect the innocent and do we include corporate actors? At what point do you become guilty or innocent? These are all questions that would take too long to answer. I say we keep our eye on the ball. This decision really does not change things that much. Now, corporations having the rights of private citizens does change things.
Did you get my post on the disposition of your book. I enjoyed it, btw, you convinced me that there should be alternative tracks. I thought that was the way. My high school had what they called vocational technical classes and even a separate school for them. I never took any of them because I was headed for college which in retrospect was a joke because I was lucky to graduate high school...most of my friends didn't. I could really have used some of those course when I got into the 'real working world'. I pretty much was at the bottom of the curve for most of the time I spent in that world. Thank God, I finally escaped it. Now I'm at the bottom of the curve of my new world...kinda, sorta. :O)
Hi Scott,
When I was growing up my daddy always use to say it takes two to tango (he liked to tango). Incidentally, what the heck is a 'trackback'?
Crawling and scratching I made it. Dammit BP. Plus the hole. Clean up the gulf.
What we need to do is protect the innocent from oversealous police and DA's while NOT going overboad and handcuffing our criminal justice system making it difficult or impossible to prosecute guilty persons.
Justice should be the goal. As I said, free the innocent and convict the guilty. We're making it too "technically" difficult for the police to arrest people and the DA's to convict them. Protection of the innocent is imperative. But we have to be reasonable. Unfortunately, law is frequently NOT reasonable. There should not be ANY "freeing of the guilty" on a technicality. JUSTICE should ALWAYS the ultimate goal.
You made "10"!
(You know I always got your back dude)
I believe you, but it is one of those questions I've always had. I've had students tell me how often the police hassle them, but it's one of those deals where you are not sure where the truth really lies.
I think what loma says is definitely true. Ability to pay definitely affects the defense one will get. I see the stats on who represents the prison population, but then that goes back to who can afford the best attorneys.
"An overzealous prosecutor or a strong-armed cop overstep their bounds. I ask legitimately how often this occurs. "
Not to be negative but I would say that happens many times in any given day. I really mean that, I'm not being facetious.
Seems that Bill Clinton and Congress passed and signed this into law. Of course, the 1990s are a litte hazy on the memory. Again, priorities. We need to step aside and decide what really is a crime and what isn't. A couple of highlights:
1) What two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors is not a crime. I don't care if one or more paid $50 for it. If no one gets hurt then it isn't a crime (unless someone pays extra to be hurt). I don't feel like doing a prostitution blog so here goes. When you legalize it you free the women from pimps. The government now regulates it and makes sure everyone involved is safe.
2) If your worse offense is getting high then you should not go to jail. If you legalize it then the need for dealers goes away.
Ask the police, ask the judges, they will tell you that most of our crime is committed by people that were in prison and got out. Read the newspapers, almost ALL these criminals have been in prison before, many several times. We need to enforce the "3 strikes you're out" rule and admit that some people just can't live in our society without being a threat to others.
Sorry, these people need to be locked up for good. If we did that, we'd have a lot less crime.
I'd comment further but I have to go "blog" on Bob's article about the BP spill.
Okay, now we have something. A couple of points of departure:
1) Why exactly are we the "prison nation"? In other words, what do we attribute this to?
2) Is that a bad thing necessarily?
I for one attribute it to a couple of major factors and too many minor ones to elaborate. The first major factor is the criminalization of drug use. If you vacated the convictions on all users and minor dealers you would eliminate a hefty percentage of our jails. The second major factor would be the gap between the halves and have nots. Among civilized societies, our gap is the largest by a considerable margin. Poverty rates and crime rates tend to go hand in hand.
As for the second, I would say that globally this is a bad thing, but this doesn't mean we should be soft on crime. I think like anything else you have to pick and choose what your priorities are. If you have to let a violent criminal go because you need room for one more pothead then something is horribly wrong. I'll let the peanut gallery takeover.
(Tongue firmly planted in cheek in Glenn Beck like voice): When is this whole BP thing going to end. It's really eating into my readership.
I tried waiting for you carguy, but I just couldn't stand it!!!
I am not surprised that you haven't reeled in a bunch of fish on this one. I am a little surprised that the first "bite" you got was lomamonster.
I'm gonna take a swing at this and say that justice TO ME, is when "the guilty are punished and the innocent are freed."
There is no justice when the guilty get away with their crimes. There is even less justice when innocent men are imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.
Fact is, guilty people get off ALL the time. And, we send innocent people to jail frequently. My nephew recently spent 7 years in PRISON for something he did not do. So I know of what I speak.
But our system, as they say, is the worst system in the world, EXCEPT, for all the rest. Anytme you factor PEOPLE into the mix, you are gonna get imperfect results.
I would like to add that it is useless to treat this question in an academic sense when we are now termed in international communities as "The Prison Nation".
Well Scott, the definition of justice in the U.S. is generally linked to the "you get what you pay for" crowd who shop around for prominent and well rehearsed attorneys in the field of criminal law. However, those with no resources are stuck with novices or court appointed lawyers who generally do more harm than good to the innocent. So what is justice?
Beats me!
All I know is that "equal justice for all" is a farce, and we evidence that daily with the most recent Hollyweird arrests and their trial conclusions.