...an expression that should banished from the American lexicon.
"Justice" is an absolute value, describing the condition that exists when some evil is met with a proportionate result or punishment (or, conversely, when some "good" is met with a proportionate reward).
We commission our Legislatures to do the in-exact calculus of what punishments are warranted by what crimes, and we commission the police and states' attorneys and juries to apprehend perpetrators, determine guilt or innocence (giving preference to innocence in the absence of sufficient proof), and to mete out "justice" as defined by us (through our Legislatures).
There are many errors made when factually guilty people are exonerated due to a lack of evidence, and the occasional error of convicting someone who did not do that particular crime. Usually, however, when someone is exonerated the facts are that he was guilty of that or other crimes that were not specifically prosecuted but was convicted of one that he, just by happenstance, did not commit. Or there was a problem with the police in how they gathered evidence. The truly innocent are RARELY convicted, which is why it gets so much media coverage when it happens.
But under the theory of "Social Justice," one looks at the percentage of "Black" and 'Latino" people in our prisons, notes that it is out of proportion with their respective presence in the general population, and says, "this is unjust."
Baloney. Justice MUST be considered on an individual basis and not on groups of people. Thinking of it in terms of an overall population brings about insidious results. People who are in prison for very good reasons, who have been apprehended, tried, and convicted according to all the rules will now be let go because someone's sense of Social Justice has been offended.
If you want to find people who were wrongly convicted, then fine: find the ones who are truly, factually innocent (see, The Innocence Project, nationwide), and get them out. But don't draw any broad conclusions about wrongful incarceration based on PERCENTAGES. Because the fact is, they are right about where they belong, give or take.
"Justice" is an absolute value, describing the condition that exists when some evil is met with a proportionate result or punishment (or, conversely, when some "good" is met with a proportionate reward).
We commission our Legislatures to do the in-exact calculus of what punishments are warranted by what crimes, and we commission the police and states' attorneys and juries to apprehend perpetrators, determine guilt or innocence (giving preference to innocence in the absence of sufficient proof), and to mete out "justice" as defined by us (through our Legislatures).
There are many errors made when factually guilty people are exonerated due to a lack of evidence, and the occasional error of convicting someone who did not do that particular crime. Usually, however, when someone is exonerated the facts are that he was guilty of that or other crimes that were not specifically prosecuted but was convicted of one that he, just by happenstance, did not commit. Or there was a problem with the police in how they gathered evidence. The truly innocent are RARELY convicted, which is why it gets so much media coverage when it happens.
But under the theory of "Social Justice," one looks at the percentage of "Black" and 'Latino" people in our prisons, notes that it is out of proportion with their respective presence in the general population, and says, "this is unjust."
Baloney. Justice MUST be considered on an individual basis and not on groups of people. Thinking of it in terms of an overall population brings about insidious results. People who are in prison for very good reasons, who have been apprehended, tried, and convicted according to all the rules will now be let go because someone's sense of Social Justice has been offended.
If you want to find people who were wrongly convicted, then fine: find the ones who are truly, factually innocent (see, The Innocence Project, nationwide), and get them out. But don't draw any broad conclusions about wrongful incarceration based on PERCENTAGES. Because the fact is, they are right about where they belong, give or take.
