The Justice System

“I believe [...] that while all human life is sacred there’s nothing wrong with the death penalty if you can trust the legal system implicitly, and that no one but a moron would ever trust the legal system.” ~Neil Gaiman

All rise as the honorable judge enters the court, dressed in an imposing black robe, and ascends to a position of superiority behind an ominous desk above everyone else in the room. A large government seal illuminated on the wall behind him to create a sense of divinity. Armed guards posted strategically around the room. Flags and pictures of other distinguished, “honorable” people past and present adorn the walls. It’s an intimidation technique used to get and keep people off balance. To create a sense of superiority over them so they’ll be obedient little participants in the State’s dog and pony show. But why is he honorable? Why should we honor him? Honor is earned not bestowed. We don’t even know him. Is he honorable? Has he earned it? Judges are either elected or appointed from what I understand. Nothing honorable about that. I don’t think “honorable” means what they think it means.

Innocent until proven guilty is the illusion provided to slaves by their masters to give the slaves hope. As if guilt or innocence is something determined by the State. Someone is either innocent of a crime or they are guilty of the crime; that doesn’t change based on the judgement of someone’s “justice system.” With such a system guilty people will be judged innocent and innocent people will be judged guilty and everyone’s soul will be lost. In a free society there are no “laws” or “Justice System.” Nobody has any authority to “arrest” and “Judge” a “suspect” of their choosing after the fact. Justice is served between the criminal and the victim. Then everyone knows who is innocent and who is guilty.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the State’s standard for proving people guilty and imprisoning them. But what is a “reasonable doubt”? Ask a hundred people and get a hundred different answers. I have reasonable doubt that reasonable doubt is a valid standard. Pretty fucking ambiguous when people’s lives hang in the balance. A reasonable doubt does not prove anything. It just means some arbitrary people think it might be true, whether it is or not. There are only ever two people who will ever know the truth about a crime: the victim and the criminal. All the rest is an educated guess at best and some “judge’s” opinion at worst.

How many people have been wrongly imprisoned over the centuries based on proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”? How many lives ruined? How many have been wrongly executed based on the arbitrary conclusions of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”? How does such a “justice system” make amends for such things? How does it find absolution? Does it care? I have reasonable doubt that the “justice system” has anything to do with justice.

And when you enter a courtroom everyone works for the government except you. What could go wrong? The judge, the court reporter, the guards, the bailiff, the prosecutor, even your lawyer. His first obligation is to the Bar Association that licensed him, not to you. If he gets disbarred by caring more about the truth and real justice than the State’s “justice system” then he can’t work. He’s not going to risk that, first sign of trouble and he’ll throw you under the bus faster than a dead chicken. Even the “jury of your peers” is bound by the State’s rules.

What is a jury of your peers? How are they peers? There is no explanation of this. Because they are human beings too? Other than that what is it about these arbitrary people that makes them peers? They don’t know anything about the accused, they know nothing about their background, their education, family, work, interests, nothing. How can they be declared to be peers? Is an 18-year-old unemployed man the peer of the 50-year-old surgeon? Is the school teacher a peer of the stripper? Is a professional athlete the peer of a pilot? The disparity between people in society is enormous to so arbitrarily consider everybody peers. Nor do the lawyers care about such disparities. They’re looking for jurors that they believe can best help their client regardless of the truth. Characteristics that have little to do with the legal accusations like race, gender, prejudices, income, etc. I don’t think “peer” means what they think it means.

As a juror in the government's courts, you are not allowed to examine the morality of their rules. Even if you think the rules are immoral, even if you think the person on trial did nothing wrong, you must consider only if they disobeyed the rules and if so, then you must find him guilty. The State has already made the rules and they didn't need your input when they made them and they don't need it now.

But what are you really finding him guilty of? A crime? Not necessarily. The crime is the incarceration of an innocent man who has done nothing wrong. As a juror you are compelled to abandon your morality and betray your conscience and judge someone based only from within the constraints the State gives you. The state destroys everything it touches including the moral fabric of a society. And they call it “The Justice System.” I don’t think “justice” means what they think it means.

Many verdicts are based on common law. Common Law is the idea that past injustices by the “justice system,” codified into law, provide precedence for those injustices and therefore justify current injustices by the “justice system.” Got that shit? Since they fucked up in the past, they must continue to fuck up in order to be fair. After all, isn't that what justice is all about? Rinse and repeat.