Justice

There is evidence. There is proof. There is hearsay. There is impression. There is gossip and rumor. There is he-said, she-said.  There is false testimony which serves to poison a person’s reputation and is quickly withdrawn once the vandalism is done.

There is contradictory testimony. All must be considered, sifted, separated, and ultimately supported by vetted sources and investigated by an impartial organization that is qualified to pick through the hard facts and the hysteria, the accusations and the slander, using sound practices like chain of evidence possession, multiple, independent labs, input from qualified experts, etc.

Enough proof justifies a trial before an impartial jury and judge. This is an indictment. An indictment is not a judgement. It is not a sentence. An indictment merely means that a grand jury has determined that there is enough credible evidence to warrant a trail. As they say; a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. It’s much like an impeachment. An impeachment is bad press, but it is not a sentence of guilt, merely step one on the path to a trial.

In any case the defendant has the right to face his accuser and review the evidence against him. He has the right to counsel and to defend himself. Cross examination. Expert witnesses. Specific accusations that do not change over the course of the trial.

Then a judgement is made and a verdict delivered. Sentence is then carried out, plea bargained, deals made, state’s evidence turned, the defendant is given a chance to turn on bigger fish. Justice is disgusting. It’s one of those things you don’t want to see close up.

During this entire procedure, up until a verdict is delivered, the defendant is considered innocent. Innocent until proven guilty.

This is our legal system. The Rule of Law. This is the basis of jurisprudence in the civilized world. This applies to everybody. Individuals. Business executives. Public figures. Politicians. World leaders. Whoever you are. People you like. People you don’t like. Hillary Clinton. Juliann Assange. Donald Trump. Bashar al Assad. Benjamin Netanyahu. The guilt or innocence of an accused is not dependent upon the profanity of the crime nor upon the outrage of the masses, only on the verity of the evidence.

There’s a reason why we must insist upon a fair trial for every war criminal and corporate or political miscreant, all the way down to the dogcatcher and the cop on the beat. Justice is blind and so she weighs the evidence and goes by what she knows to be true. We must do the same.

Of course, this is not what happens in the real world. This is more idealized, Greek temple, philosophers discussing law on the steps of the gymnasium, Middle Ages barons threatening the king if they don’t get reforms to the legal system. And it is never done. Every age must struggle with the ideals of justice. Do we fall back into a Machiavellian game of sabotage, sensation, and spin? Or do we do what’s mundane and tedious. No matter how much we may dislike someone, we still guarantee them a fair trial. Jewish scholars in the first century believed that a Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court, that delivered more than one death penalty in 70 years was blood thirsty. That was an enlightened court.

Why should we care? Why not just walk away from the slaughter of an innocent for a heinous crime as ‘justice?’ It was a horrible crime. Everyone says this guy did it. Don’t we want justice for the innocent? Don’t we?

Yes, we do. But remember one thing: The next one in the docket may be you. Would you like to be judged by the mob?