No justice system worthy of its name punishes the innocent.
The Book of Proverbs, teaches, "Acquitting the guilty and condemning the righteous - both are detestable to the Lord." Exodus ordains, "The innocent and the righteous slay thou not." These principles are foundational to our Western justice system. Even in descriptions of justice systems that come down to us from antiquity, the innocent aren't punished. Recall the biblical story of Esther.
In The Eumenides, a play written by Aeschylus 2500 years ago, we meet the Furies, ancient goddesses, who mercilessly punish all who commit blood crimes. They pursue Orestes who has killed his mother to avenge her murder of his father. When Orestes entreats the goddess Athena to do justice in his case, she invents a a new system better calculated to do justice - the jury trial. While Aeschylus gives us a dramatic explanation of how juries came to be, Aristotle's The Constitution of the Athenians, describes the real Athenian jury system. But one truth is clear: both the Furies of fable, and the real Athenian jury existed only to punish the guilty; never the innocent.
In medieval Europe to end "justice" by revenge, the Germanic peoples invented the wergild. If the murderer paid the sum of blood money required by the law, his victim's relatives were required to accept the money in lieu of taking revenge on the murderer. Again, the Germanic system was designed only to punish the guilty; not the innocent.
In The Eumenides, a play written by Aeschylus 2500 years ago, we meet the Furies, ancient goddesses, who mercilessly punish all who commit blood crimes. They pursue Orestes who has killed his mother to avenge her murder of his father. When Orestes entreats the goddess Athena to do justice in his case, she invents a a new system better calculated to do justice - the jury trial. While Aeschylus gives us a dramatic explanation of how juries came to be, Aristotle's The Constitution of the Athenians, describes the real Athenian jury system. But one truth is clear: both the Furies of fable, and the real Athenian jury existed only to punish the guilty; never the innocent.
In medieval Europe to end "justice" by revenge, the Germanic peoples invented the wergild. If the murderer paid the sum of blood money required by the law, his victim's relatives were required to accept the money in lieu of taking revenge on the murderer. Again, the Germanic system was designed only to punish the guilty; not the innocent.
Even in medieval Trials by Ordeal and in Trials by Combat, it was believed God would shield the innocent and suffer the guilty to fail the ordeal and suffer the punishment prescribed by law.
Indeed, no Western system of justice that I am familiar with has ever permitted the taking of revenge on persons who have had no connection whatsoever with the crime committed or on their property. And yet, in 21st century America we see mobs rushing to embrace destruction of the innocent and their property.
Implicit in their rationale, if not explicit, is the presumption that when a black American is murdered by a policeman, that justice will not be done in either the state or federal courts. It would be one thing to await verdict and sentence before concluding that justice will miscarry. It is an entirely different thing to pre-judge that justice will miscarry. But that is a principle "justification" for the mob violence, arson and looting agains the innocent. But even if justice miscarries repeatedly, how can it be justice to take revenge on or punish the innocent?
Is this this way just people think?
Major premise: B1, B2 and B3 were murdered by policemen.
Minor premise: Justice miscarried or is likely to miscarry in their cases.
Conclusion: Therefore, we are justified in creating a new justice system that punishes innocent people who had nothing at all to do with the murders of B1, B2 and B3 which countenances the killing of the innocent, and stealing or destroying their property.
It has also been argued that the "protesters" who riot "simply want the police to take accountability for their actions." But how does burning down and looting the store or home of a person who had no connection whatever with the police misconduct further the goal of having the police "take accountability?"
Getting rid of rotten cops is a good idea. But how does throwing rocks or bottles at a good cop advance that agenda? The good cops are innocent of wrongdoing. How does killing or harming them, or destroying neighborhoods advance the goal of getting rid of rotten cops?
In Minneapolis 4 our of 8000 cops were involved in George Floyd's murder. Were all 8000 cops rotten? How does disbanding the police department and firing good cops advance justice? These protests began because the protesters were certain that George Floyd was innocent of anything whatsoever that could possibly merit the death penalty. The good cops are innocent of anything meriting the loss of their employment. The peaceful people of Minneapolis are innocent of anything that would warrant depriving them of police protection. Recall the biblical story of Sodom?
"For the sake of 10, I will not destroy it."
When I was a boy, my mother taught me that "Two wrongs don't make a right." My Catholic schooling taught, "The ends don't justify the means."
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides,
Indeed, no Western system of justice that I am familiar with has ever permitted the taking of revenge on persons who have had no connection whatsoever with the crime committed or on their property. And yet, in 21st century America we see mobs rushing to embrace destruction of the innocent and their property.
Implicit in their rationale, if not explicit, is the presumption that when a black American is murdered by a policeman, that justice will not be done in either the state or federal courts. It would be one thing to await verdict and sentence before concluding that justice will miscarry. It is an entirely different thing to pre-judge that justice will miscarry. But that is a principle "justification" for the mob violence, arson and looting agains the innocent. But even if justice miscarries repeatedly, how can it be justice to take revenge on or punish the innocent?
Is this this way just people think?
Major premise: B1, B2 and B3 were murdered by policemen.
Minor premise: Justice miscarried or is likely to miscarry in their cases.
Conclusion: Therefore, we are justified in creating a new justice system that punishes innocent people who had nothing at all to do with the murders of B1, B2 and B3 which countenances the killing of the innocent, and stealing or destroying their property.
It has also been argued that the "protesters" who riot "simply want the police to take accountability for their actions." But how does burning down and looting the store or home of a person who had no connection whatever with the police misconduct further the goal of having the police "take accountability?"
Getting rid of rotten cops is a good idea. But how does throwing rocks or bottles at a good cop advance that agenda? The good cops are innocent of wrongdoing. How does killing or harming them, or destroying neighborhoods advance the goal of getting rid of rotten cops?
In Minneapolis 4 our of 8000 cops were involved in George Floyd's murder. Were all 8000 cops rotten? How does disbanding the police department and firing good cops advance justice? These protests began because the protesters were certain that George Floyd was innocent of anything whatsoever that could possibly merit the death penalty. The good cops are innocent of anything meriting the loss of their employment. The peaceful people of Minneapolis are innocent of anything that would warrant depriving them of police protection. Recall the biblical story of Sodom?
"For the sake of 10, I will not destroy it."
When I was a boy, my mother taught me that "Two wrongs don't make a right." My Catholic schooling taught, "The ends don't justify the means."
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides,
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Every American, therefore, has the right to speak against evil, to peaceably assemble, [or demonstrate] and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But there is nothing in the First Amendment or any other clause of the Constitution that authorizes any American to engage in riots, mob actions, looting, burglary or arson.Nor is there any language whatever therein that permits revenge, lynchings, and/or vigilantism.
No Constitution of any enlightened state permits the punishment of the innocent, or the theft or destruction of their property. Indeed under our Constitution, property cannot be taken even by the government without paying just compensation, and without due process. Mob violence is the antithesis of due process.
The riots, looting and destruction of property occurring throughout our country clearly demonstrates to any thinking citizen the dangerous folly inherent in doing wrong to right a wrong. Riots, looting and property destruction of the innocent can never be "just means" to accomplish the "end" of bringing the murderers of George Floyd's justice. Wanton destruction of an innocent neighbor or his property can never be justice. In the words of President Lincoln, no man has "a right to do a wrong."
The English-speaking people tried other systems of justice before settling on the jury system. Our founders knew that jury trials, whatever their shortcomings, were essential to guarantee our liberties from kings and dictators. Only those who have not thought it through would eschew the jury trial for the alternative of mob violence, revenge, lynchings and/or vigilantism.
For 2000 years Christinas have professed to loving one's neighbor as oneself. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is said to be the "Golden Rule." If you are innocent of wrongdoing, would you want your neighbor to burn your house and business because a police officer misused his authority?
In the "Man for all Seasons," St. Thomas More asked Roper, "when you've knocked down all the laws of the realm to get at the Devil, where will you hide when the Devil turns and comes after you?"
When Constitutions are trashed, dictatorships follow. America has a choice.
But there is nothing in the First Amendment or any other clause of the Constitution that authorizes any American to engage in riots, mob actions, looting, burglary or arson.Nor is there any language whatever therein that permits revenge, lynchings, and/or vigilantism.
No Constitution of any enlightened state permits the punishment of the innocent, or the theft or destruction of their property. Indeed under our Constitution, property cannot be taken even by the government without paying just compensation, and without due process. Mob violence is the antithesis of due process.
The riots, looting and destruction of property occurring throughout our country clearly demonstrates to any thinking citizen the dangerous folly inherent in doing wrong to right a wrong. Riots, looting and property destruction of the innocent can never be "just means" to accomplish the "end" of bringing the murderers of George Floyd's justice. Wanton destruction of an innocent neighbor or his property can never be justice. In the words of President Lincoln, no man has "a right to do a wrong."
The English-speaking people tried other systems of justice before settling on the jury system. Our founders knew that jury trials, whatever their shortcomings, were essential to guarantee our liberties from kings and dictators. Only those who have not thought it through would eschew the jury trial for the alternative of mob violence, revenge, lynchings and/or vigilantism.
For 2000 years Christinas have professed to loving one's neighbor as oneself. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is said to be the "Golden Rule." If you are innocent of wrongdoing, would you want your neighbor to burn your house and business because a police officer misused his authority?
In the "Man for all Seasons," St. Thomas More asked Roper, "when you've knocked down all the laws of the realm to get at the Devil, where will you hide when the Devil turns and comes after you?"
When Constitutions are trashed, dictatorships follow. America has a choice.
This piece was published originally on QCOnline on June 7, 2020
Copyright 2020, John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment