Tag: justice
-
Is Something Wrong with Social Justice
We recently released a new book in the Topical Line Drives series, What is Wrong with Social Justice?. In it Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. presents his case that “social justice” is not actual justice. In fact, he claims, it is inimical to true justice.
Energion author Bob LaRochelle has a somewhat different view. While he appreciates the tone and quality of Elgin’s argument, he continues to disagree with the main point.
Join the discussion on Bob’s blog or here.
Also: Watch here for information on a Google Hangout on Air that will feature Elgin and Bob discussing their differences on this issue. The hangout will be on October 28 at 7 pm central time. -
Question 5 – Second Reply Set – The Justice System
Combining Replies from both Elgin Hushbeck, and Joel Watts.
Question #5
Reply by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.
Reply by Joel Watts
Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. Response #1
Joel Watts Response #1[6/24/13 – I inadvertently posted the wrong content for Joel Watts’ reply. The corrected text is below. – HN]
Response #2 by Joel Watts:
1.) The question you propose – justice or rules – is not a difficult to answer. We live in a Republic of laws, thus the laws must be followed. This is a major issue with democracies —justice is based only on the whims of the majority. This is why our Founders hated democracy and instead placed us within a Republic. While the guilty may go free and the innocent be imprisoned, if the laws are followed, then the Republic is upheld. Perhaps this is what shades your view of the present system, you believe it is a democracy.
Unfortunately, “scandal” is a word attached to easily. The IRS did its job and should be commended. Congress, on the other hand, did not. This goes back to the law bit. We have ingrained in law certain procedures, such as the 30 day request. If these aren’t followed, then other actions are, by law, implemented. Given the rapid change in laws around the 501(c) entities, and the cutting of funds to this particular IRS department, the IRS will have to make sure.
As far as your poor caricature of the lung transport girl, I am unsure as to where to begin to straighten out your views. Sarah Palin is a liar. The rule is no more a death panel than the reverse of not having rules. Again, we live in a Republic with rules and laws, and yet you would deem them broken at every whim. If you cannot properly address the issue, I have to wonder what is the point?
2.) You support the death. Could you give me Scripture to that regard? Or is this purely a decision based on current philosophical thought?Response #2 by Elgin Hushbeck:
On a jury of peers, I agree that prejudices could be a problem, and one that cuts both ways. Some would be more likely to convict, some would be more likely to acquit.
As for citizen suits, I don’t see how these can be allowed, and still retain the rule of law or avoid a return to vigilantism. As for your example, that is just historically wrong. Segregation was correctly and properly challenged on a number of fronts, including suits by those who were harmed by it. Such suits are not the type of suits I am referring to. Normally to bring a suit one must be directly harmed. The suits I am referring to are those which until recently, would have been dismissed because there was no standing. In fact this is still the case in many areas of law, however in a few areas, particularly environmental law, special exceptions have been made and enforcement powers granted to individuals.
I would agree that “Justice is not retribution” but beyond that we have vastly different definitions for justice. Mine is a pretty traditional understanding that involves equity and righting wrongs. It is distinguished from revenge in pretty much the same way that Aristotle did, as a rational process that seeks equity, as opposed to an irrational response grounded in inflicting pain. Justice is rooted outside of ourselves, ultimately in God, and on earth through the state, which is why vigilantism is to be avoided. Revenge is rooted within ourselves and in our desires, rather than our reason. But this is a distinction that is often overlooked. -
Question 5 Response 1 – Elgin Hushbeck – Reforming the Penal System
Links:
Question 5
Elgin Hushbeck Reply to Question 5
Joel Watts Reply to Question 5
Joel Watts Question 5 Response 1
Second Reply Set (Both Joel Watts and Elgin Hushbeck)
Question: You write of finding “the least bad one.” Why are you so pessimistic that the situation cannot be righted? Even if Eden started off perfected but was later corrupted, doesn’t mean God found the “least bad one” in answers to fix the problem. We just need to find the way back to restore the intended philosophy. Is it your view that Government is simply a “necessary evil?” If so, how do you support that both from Scripture and from the American political tradition?
I say the least bad one, because all systems will have their flaws and weaknesses. In a perfect system the guilty would always be convicted and the innocent acquitted. I know of no such system. A system that focuses on making sure the guilty are always convicted will also convict the innocent at times. A system the focuses on making sure the innocent are always acquitted, will also at times acquit the guilty. Both have serious problems. While it is common to hold that it is better that 10 guilty people be acquitted than one innocent person be convicted, I have never been very comfortable with that, because it leaves 10 criminals free and emboldened to commit more crime. There is a Jewish saying, Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
As I write about in my book, one of the key problems with the current system it that it is almost completely cut off from the notion of justice. For far too many in the system, it is just about winning and losing. The goal of the prosecutor is have a very high conviction rate, the goal of the defense attorney is get their client off. I do believe the current system is tilted for the defense to the point that we have seen defense lawyers even lie in court and have nothing happen to them, as that is just “doing their job.” But still, the result is that miscarriages of justice occur on both sides.
In some respects this comes down to a question I ask in my critical thinking classes: Is it better to have justice, or that the courts follow the rules? There is no easy answer to this question. Both answers have problems. Despite what I have said above about the importance of justice, I still come down on the side of following the rules, but I too want a set of rules that maximize justice.
As for my view of Government, I am not a libertarian. I do believe that government has an important and vital role to play, but like so many good things, it has it limits. An analogy would be food: we need it, and it can be done well or poorly, but too much of it is a problem. Currently the Government is severely over weight and bloated. In too many ways, it has ceased to serve us, and we must now serve it and feed it.
Forget the scandal part of the IRS for the moment, just the idea that they can take over 1000 days to respond on a filing and when they do, they request a massive amount of information and give you 30 days to reply or your file will be closed and your $800 fee forfeited, is obscene! They can take all the time they want, but you have to jump when they say jump.
Another example of extreme abuse of power would be the case of the Sackett v. EPA, which is far from being unique. Sarah Palin was widely criticized on the left for her comment on Death Panels, and yet we have the spectacle of a congressmen pleading for the Secretary of HHS to suspend a ruling so that a girl can have a chance to live. Given all that has happened with this administration I cannot help but wonder if Sebelius would have been more receptive had the Congressman been a Democrat whose support was needed on a key piece of legislation.
So in my view government is important and vital, but should also be small with policies and laws made at the local level and at the federal only as a last resort.
Another way to understand my view is the analogy of addiction. Government at all levels and with both parties, is addicted to spending. But it is not just spending in general, but spending that benefits them, that allows them to claim that they “brought home the bacon” and thus get themselves reelected. The problem here is that while there is a lot of responsibility, there are very few votes to be had from spending on the Justice system, and thus it has been allowed to wither. Thus it is one of the few areas I would support a big increases in spending if done intelligently, which for government may be asking too much.
Question : What is your position on the death penalty?
I support the death penalty in at least some cases. For example, I think it was very appropriate for the Oklahoma City Bomber. In contrast, I think it a travesty of justice that the Norwegian mass murder will serve a maximum of 21 years for killing 77 people. That is a little over 3 months per person. He was 33 years old when convicted and will be 54 at most when released. Frankly even life in prison is hard to reconcile with any concept of justice in such a case.
-
Question 5 Response 1 – Joel Watts – Reforming the Penal System
Links:
Question 5
Elgin Hushbeck Reply to Question 5
Joel Watts Reply to Question 5
Elgin Hushbeck Question 5 Response 1
Second Reply Set (Both Joel Watts and Elgin Hushbeck)
Q1.) We seem to be in agreement concerning the current functioning of the jury systems, but I am not clear exactly what you mean by “The Jury system must be reworked so that a jury of peers is just that, a jury of peers. Again, an empirical metric must be established to examine and then set forth peerage.”
A1.) Peerage is not a group for males for a male who is being tried. We must look at socio-economic and other factors in determining peerage. My concern is the oftentimes prejudices we bring to bear when we are confronted with decision making situations. Admittedly, I might be less likely to believe someone who was a Tea Party member or a Christian fundamentalist. I would hope that I could be fair, but I would rather have this prevented.
Q2.) A significant problem is the ability of individual citizens to file lawsuits in order to enforce public policies or statues. Such suits are easily exploited to harass and delay, and thus can be used to block legal activities by making them too costly to pursue. In addition this transfer’s the enforcement power from the government to the individual, which is a return to vigilantism and thus a weakening of the rule of law. (Note if you agree with this, it would probably be better to change to a different qu
A2.) I am not sure I would agree easily with this. I believe the individual, with whom the representative part of this representative democratic Republic lies, must have the power to enforce policies where such enforcement is lax. Otherwise, we would not have segregation challenged, nor in many cases, the constitutionality of certain laws ever decided.
Q3.) You said that “Justice is not the amount of money received, but whether or not the cause of the tragedy is averted to prevent the accident from happening again.” I have frequently heard trial lawyers claim that the large awards act as a deterrent, and such suits have affected the behavior of manufactures to make products safer, and if nothing else they entertain us with wacky warning labels. More to the point, would a result that completely eliminated the possibility of reoccurrence, but did nothing for the victim be justice?
A3.) Justice is not retribution, so yes, justice is the elimination of a reoccurrence as much as possible under the law rather than any award given to the victim in damages. I am not against the awarding of damages, but these are rarely deterrents in any meaningful sense.
