Digest 6

SHARPEYED CHICKEN DIGEST
VOLUME 1, NO.6

Justice: “The quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness,” per Random House Webster’s

We’ll start this week with another story about Nasruddin, the wise fool we left eating his money in issue#3. Somehow, he’d gotten appointed as the judge of a local court, where personal disputes were settled. The case before him involved a mother who said her son was eating so much sugar, she couldn’t afford other groceries, She asked Nasruddin to order her son to eat less sugar. Nasruddin paused, and suggested the woman come back in an week. In fact, she came back for several weeks, and still there was no decision.

Finally, Nasruddin announced his readiness to rule on the case. ‘”From this day forward, he said to the boy, sternly, you must eat no more than 1/4 cup of sugar.” Relieved, the mother said, “Thank you, Your Honor, but may I ask why it took so long to make this ruling?” “Ah, madam,” replied Nasruddin, “I myself was addicted to sugar, and had no idea how long it would take to cut my own consumption.”

If only…..

The Greek philosopher Plato was consumed with the issue of justice. He believed that justice is the quality of soul, which permits men to set aside the irrational desire to taste every pleasure. He told his students that all know what justice is, and challenged them to practice it. Well, we certainly know what it isn’t, don’t we?

A few years ago, I served as foreman on a jury for a criminal case. A young man had been charged by an overzealous prosecutor with possession of an unregulated gun, a felony. Sworn testimony during the trial made it abundantly clear that the charge was baseless. It took the jury just a few minutes to find him innocent. When the judge announced our verdict and ordered the man released, his mother, who had borrowed money to pay his bail and attorney, cried with relief. The whole episode was a waste of time and money, and I walked away wondering how often this happens and how often the correct decision is reached.

I believe that a “jury of my peers” should not be chosen based on their complete ignorance of who I am and why I have been charged. Assuming that justice can be achieved by allowing sophistical lawyers to sway ignorant jurors is a recipe for injustice.

A recent article on the unreliability of eye-witness testimony concluded that “mindset or expectation interferes with reliable observation.” The majority of reversed convictions, some years after years of incarceration, involve mistaken eye-witness testimony. Many other convictions reveal egregious misconduct by police and/or prosecutors, who withhold important evidence, provide false witness, or worse. Yet there are never any consequences for these offenses.

And then we have “intent,” which should be of interest only to lawyers and theologians. Modern neuropsychology insists that most behavior is generated deep within the subconscious. Our “monkey brain” then creates a story about “why” we did it. “Why did you do that?” is a useless question. No one knows for sure why they did anything. “How did it happen?” is a much more relevant question.

We have been hearing a lot about racial injustice, which has been a serious problem during more than 400 years of systematic discrimination, even slavery. We now have almost daily reports of Police selectively enforcing the law. Much has correctly been made of the rash of recent killings of people of color by Police, nearly all of which can be summed up as follows: failure to obey the order of a Police officer is now a capital crime, with the officer serving as judge, jury and executioner, Gangsters state bluntly that they killed someone because he “dissed” (disrespected) them. Would someone please explain to me the difference? Starting with Rodney King and right down to George Floyd, we are told that their offense was that they disobeyed Police orders. No wonder black parents must routinely drill their children on showing respect when stopped by a police officer, even if they are sure the stop was not warranted. Nor is it surprising that so few of these cases ever even make it to court. Prosecutor and Grand Juries can be expected to decide that no crime was committed. Yes, the most recent cases are, finally, being referred to court, but it remains to be seen if any convictions will ensue.

Economic justice is another longstanding issue, made worse by our Plutocracy, in which too many of our “Representatives” are beholden to contributors who provide the dollars to pay for the advertising (see issue #5 of this digest) that keeps them in office, ensuring their privileges (see issue #3). We even have a cynical version of the Golden Rule (“Whoever has the gold makes the rules”). Each day I read another article about how the rich must pay higher taxes if we are to survive as a viable culture, but what actually happens is that their taxes get cut, most recently by more than a trillion dollars.

Even as millions of children in this country go to bed hungry every night, the Stock Market soars to new highs. Why? Because a few behemoths are making record profits by exploiting our collective (well, some of us, at least) efforts to minimize the consequences of this Pandemic. Lest you miss it, we used to have Anti-Trust laws that should have limited the power of these predatory companies. What’s that? Oh, yeah. We still have those laws on the books, primarily the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, first passed at the behest of Teddy Roosevelt and other early Progressives, who sought to break up Standard Oil and other monopolies that had created the first Gilded Age, over a century ago. Though still on the books, that law has not been enforced since the Reagan era,

I’ll close with a further story about my favorite wise fool. It seems Nasruddin was back in the judge’s seat, hearing a civil case. The Plaintiff got up to make his plea, painting his grievance eloquently. Nasruddin announced excitedly, “I believe you are right!” The clerk of the court winced, and brought up the defendant, who proceeded to do his best to debunk the complaint against him. When he finished, Nasruddin exclaimed, “I believe you are right!” At this, the clerk jumped up and said, “Your Honor! They can’t both be right!” After a thoughtful pause, Nasruddin said, “I believe you are right.”

Case closed.