Dear America,
Justice (Photo credit: donsutherland1)
I think that most people have a basic misconception about the nature of justice and its source. People think of the courts as dispensing justice, and in fact the symbol of the judicial function is "blind justice," a woman wearing a blindfold and holding the scales of justice, but that isn't really what the courts are all about. And in other circumstances, we think of the police force and the agencies of the executive branch of government as the guardians of justice, but it isn't them either. The executive and the judiciary are, for purposes of this discussion, "ministerial" in their functions, as opposed to "discretionary." The executive is charged with executing the law, that is enforcing it, and the judiciary is responsible to decide disputes as to what constitutes compliance with the law. Those "magistracies" are simply a matter of doing what has been dictated in the general sense somewhere else: the legislature. The executive branch, including the police, service providers and regulatory officials are supposed to do only what the law provides for, or at least permits. They don't get to decide what to do other than to enforce the dictates that the law constitutes. Similarly, when a case goes to court, whether it be civil (a dispute between two parties) or criminal (a dispute between a defendant and the state), the court simply applies the law--whether common law or statute--and when a jury is involved, the court tells the jury what the law is and requires of the jurors that they decide the case in accord with the dictates of the law. So if an outcome in a court proceeding or an administrative decision by an agency of the government is unjust, then, presuming that the court or the agency followed the law, the only source of justice in the matter, or at least in matters like it in the future, is the legislature. And as to our national legislature, as we all know, there is an election coming up in November, and we should go to the polls with justice in mind as we cast our votes, because the police and the courts are not responsible for the injustice we experience as long as they act lawfully. For the most part, it is the legislature that is to blame if justice isn't being done, and it is them whom we should importune if we want to see a change.
At least here in the United States of America, we should be taking our elections very seriously because they create our national ethos, at least to the extent that it is institutionalized in law. With that in mind, maybe we should examine our electoral options from a perspective other than those such as party affiliation and personal opinions about how to stimulate the economy and how much regulation is too much, which seem to guide us all these days. Maybe we should be thinking in terms of the effect on justice that the candidates we choose to vote for will have. Maybe elections aren't as simple as advancing our personal interests, but are rather an opportunity to see that justice is done in our society at large...not just to us, but to everyone. From that perspective, the complexions, and the import for that matter, of some issues change dramatically. For example, there have been two major chemical accidents over the past year: one in North Carolina committed by Duke Power and the other in West Virginia committed by a much smaller company that is declaring bankruptcy now as a result. Both of these accidents polluted drinking water for thousands of people and fouled rivers that many people used for all kinds of purposes, including recreation. But, while the nation hung on tender hooks as BP cleaned up the mess it made in the Gulf of Mexico, there really hasn't been much talk about either of these accidents, or about the paucity of administrative oversight preceding both cases as well as the climate of aversion to regulation that prevails in both states. What we need to consider is the injustice represented by the actions...or in these cases the inaction...of these two states in anticipation of these two environmental disasters. With BP we saw an unabated quest to allow the oil companies to continue to operate as usual, and to even expand their risky enterprises in The Gulf, despite the hue and cry over the damage to hundreds of miles of coastline and coastal waters that affected the lives of millions of people. And that cadre of Washington politicians who cried out for maintenance of the status quo with regard to the petroleum business is largely still in office, I think because their constituents never really considered their preference for business over individuals to be a function of commitment, or lack thereof, to social justice. And it's the same in North Carolina and West Virginia. In West Virginia in particular, the climate that led to the lack of agency scrutiny of the facility that caused the environmental damage in question was a function of the mentality of the state's governor, who ran on a business friendly, regulation averse platform. His slogan was, "West Virginia is open for business." And the pollution of a river that serves not just as a recreational resource but also as a source for drinking water for thousands of people was a consequence of that attitude. And that attitude prevails in Texas too, from whence a presidential candidate in 2016 may well be nominated. In fact, that creed...openness to whatever business wants...is the Republican, conservative creed. It is the rationale for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which poses an environmental risk that could be obviated by building refineries in the northern tier of states rather than shipping tar-sands oil across hundreds of miles of pristine land so that it can be delivered to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico from which it will largely be exported as gasoline, leaving the pollution behind but importing the profits into corporate coffers. Is it socially just to afford this kind of sop to business at the expense of environmental risk and damage that could be avoided if greed were not being accommodated? Is it socially just to put local environments at risk, and hence the health and welfare of hundreds of men, women and children, because some corporation's bottom line...and hence its CEO's salary...would be improved by taking that risk? Is it socially just to prohibit regulation of hazardous activities because other states don't and business will go elsewhere if we don't let them have their way with our tax systems and environments...and hence the quality of our lives?
We have a lot to think about in November, and again in 2016, but it seems to me that our priorities are wrong right at the moment. Politics should have very little to do with how we vote. Justice should be what matters.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment