09/20/2024
A trendy discussion these days involves the question of whether the "Justice System" is biased, or put another way, whether the USA has a two-tiered "Justice System," where certain favored people receive a different process, or outcome, than others, or "the rest of us."
First, we don't have a justice system. We instead have a legal system. Before you chalk up my distinction to cynicism or a undeserved disdain for the environment in which I operate as a lawyer, consider the system itself. The idea that our courts, judges and juries deliver consistent "justice" is a commitment to an ideal. Rarely can institutions, no matter the name, consistently deliver on this promise, this goal. It's aspirational in nature. We seek justice. We pursue it, we fight for it, we advocate for it. Given that two or more "sides" are seeking it simultaneously, our subjective notions of justice aren't even universal. Each outcome can be applauded as justice, or derided as injustice. Most times, even the prevailing "side" doesn't get 100% of what they seek, so to declare "justice was done," is an arrogant sort of missive, right?
A legal system delivers only the chance for a favored outcome, so it's a better, more useful description. Juries don't hardly receive "the whole story," rather they get the portions of evidence deemed admissible by a judge, the rules, the cases, the procedures. The reason lawyers are so helpful, or necessary in court is because we know the coded language, the evidence rules, the methods to make sure the jury ever sees it. This is meant to even the field, make it fair, render the unbiased outcome, the appearance of fairness- the conclusion that the system isn't tilted toward the rich and powerful.
In its purest form, this is how our legal system is intended to operate. And, I can boast after 34 years of law practice, it remains fully capable of it, and quite often delivers. However, the levers of power are real, and the appearance that some aspects of the system are grossly biased is just as real. The system can be grossly misused to protect, or vilify the opponents of, the protected classes. Such use of authority is too easily flexed, too cavalierly possible, to prevent its abuse. People really can be "drunk with power." In no other office does this notion play out more often and more prominently than that of "prosecutor." The authority to charge a fellow citizen, to take that person to trial, to subject that person or group to the weight of indictment, and to impose upon them the anxiety of losing Liberty, is truly awesome. Likewise, the discretion and freedom to decline such action, to lessen such pressure, to water down such effort when friends or allies in some political environment or class or allegiance are accused, are even more powerful. What's more impactful? Exaggerated and multiplied criminal charges made upon a person indiscriminately, because of affiliation, class or enmity? Or proffering a weakened, diluted indictment or process upon a person due to alignment of affiliation, or friendship or class?
Again, such realities are rare, but they are realities. What effect does this have on your jury service? On your decision to enter the legal system-go to court? Tell me about your experiences, thoughts, opinions.