Justice is an appealing concept. Just about nobody rejects it, at least in the abstract. But even those loudest in calling for it seldom appreciate what it would require.
Our nation is rife with injustices. Some of them are perpetrated by the very organs that are supposed to enforce justice. Others occur because all too often, the “forces of justice” are disinclined to do their jobs, or have been told not to do them. And still others are consequences of previous injustices that haven’t been remedied.
Oh, sorry; I’ve neglected the proprieties, haven’t I? Good morning, Gentle Reader! I hope your day has been going well. As for myself, I’ve been up since 4:00 AM. That’s become my “normal” rising hour. And ever since I awoke, the word justice has been rattling around in my head.
When injustice runs riot, the imperative question is why? The answer is almost always unpleasant.
Late in 2020, I wrote about the prospects for the return of the “vigilance committee.” The possibility seemed to loom large at that time, owing to the rioting that had afflicted so many American cities. To the best of my knowledge, nothing of the sort happened. Given the rampant injustices being inflicted on peaceable Americans and their property, one must wonder why not.
We’ve been propagandized relentlessly about “private justice.” The propaganda equates it to injustice, as if The State has some magical quality that blesses acts of coercion. But it’s not so. “The State” is a fictitious entity. It works through the wills and deeds of individuals in its service. If those persons succeed in “doing justice,” what distinguishes them from persons not in The State’s service who would have done the same things?
I put those thoughts into the mouth of my best-loved protagonist:
The Friday afternoon confessions were seldom well attended. Schliemann hadn’t had a penitent in more than ten minutes. His mind was beginning to wander when a new shadow appeared on the confessional screen.
“Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.”
The old priest sat straight up.
“Louis?”
“I’m sorry it’s been so long since I’ve been by, Father.”
“I’ve been worried, Louis. Are you all right?”
There was a long silence.
“No. This will probably be my last confession.”
A cold hand slipped around Schliemann’s heart and squeezed.
Oh, my God.
The priest listened in silent agony as Louis recited a litany of minor faults and self-indulgences.
He always confesses to the same things. Never anything serious. He’s about to face the Particular Judgement, and I have yet to hear anything about two killings committed in his front yard.
Louis fell silent, waiting to hear what his penance would be.
“Anything else, Louis?”
“No, Father, I’m done.”
I can’t let it pass!
“What about the two men you killed?”
A hiss came through the screen. The shadow head pulled itself a little higher.
“What about them, Father?”
Schliemann’s throat was dry. “I seem to recall a commandment on the subject.”
“As do I. But did it forbid killing, or murder?”
“The text says, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ “
“That’s the English text. What was the Aramaic? Or the Hebrew?”
Schliemann started to expostulate and stopped himself. A twitching was developing in his right elbow. It made him want to jerk his arm.
“Actually, Father, it isn’t two men, it’s four. And all for the same reason: because I caught them practicing the abuse of the helpless. I don’t tolerate that sort of thing.”
“You don’t tolerate...when and where were the other two?”
“About eight years ago, on a back street on the fringe of the city. They were raping a teenage girl, holding a knife to her throat.” Louis’s tone was conversational. “I killed them both and walked the girl home.”
“How is it that a man of your size and gentility knows so much about violence as to be able to kill two men at will? You weren’t carrying your shotgun that day, were you?”
“No, Father, I wasn’t armed.”
“Well?”
There was a pause.
“Call it a gift. I’m not exactly what I appear to be. I never have been.”
“And you feel no remorse for any of this? My God, Louis, what kind of man are you? Have I ever known you at all?”
“I may not be exactly what I appear to be, Father, but I am a man.” The words were droplets of molten iron. “Twice, when there was no one else to do it, I’ve acted in defense of my kind. To do so, it was necessary that I kill. Was it horrible? Yes, just as it should be. Did it leave me with nightmares? Yes, just as it should have. If the necessity were to recur, would I do it again? Yes, in a heartbeat. And that, too, is as it should be.”
Schliemann had had all the words shocked out of him. The twitch had traveled down from his elbow to his hand, whose fingers were dancing beyond his control. Something seemed to be happening in his ribcage, too.
“The Church doesn’t have much to say about earthly justice, Father. I’ve always wondered why. Maybe the notion of divine justice is as much as it has to give us. But justice in this world is a human artifact. Either it’s made by individuals or it doesn’t exist. I have made my share of it, and I don’t regret it in the slightest. Now you’ve heard about all of it, though I never intended that you should. Does the Church cast me out for this?”
Well? Where lies the difference that condemns “private justice” but sanctifies “justice” in the hands of The State? If there is no difference, then when The State fails to do justice, why don’t we act? When injustices are perpetrated by The State itself... why sit we here idle?
One recent case has fired many persons’ fury: the August 22nd killing of Iryna Zarutska by Decarlos Brown Jr. on a North Carolina train. Brown, a career criminal with 13 convictions to his record, attacked Zarutska for no imaginable reason. But what has followed?
Brown has been indicted for first-degree murder. Yet no one could say that justice has been swift. Rather, Brown has been remanded for 60 days for “psychiatric evaluation.” The question on many minds is whether he could face the death penalty. Incredibly, the answer is six months away:
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WBTV) - The man accused of killing a Ukrainian woman on a Charlotte light rail almost two months ago was scheduled to have a crucial court hearing on Thursday.
Decarlos Brown Jr., the man accused of killing 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska back in late August, was scheduled to have a Rule 24 court hearing on Thursday, Oct. 16. A Rule 24 hearing is for the state to determine whether or not they would pursue the death penalty.
Court documents said that the hearing has now been pushed back until April 2026.
The decision to delay the hearing came from Brown and his attorney, Daniel Roberts. However, the reason for the delay was redacted, according to court documents.
“The reason for the delay was redacted,” eh? A black career criminal wantonly murdered an innocent white woman? All the facts were multiply witnessed and video-recorded? But whether the murderer will face capital punishment must be delayed, for reasons the public cannot be allowed to know?
That doesn’t sound like justice. Not even like justice-in-process.
I shan’t speculate on why the delay was granted. (It’s fairly clear why Brown’s attorney requested it.) But if this sounds like justice to anyone, I haven’t met him.
The attempts to guarantee justice built into the American system are best expressed here:
Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Six months merely to determine the possible penalty, plus God only knows how much longer before the trial can be held, does not sound “speedy.” More, at least one part of the process is deliberately being concealed from the “public.” And of course, the psychiatric evaluation mentioned above is being kept secret as well. Whatever the ultimate verdict of the evaluators, we’ll never learn the basis of their decision.
If this is the quality of “justice” that the worthy citizens of North Carolina can expect from The State, beware. For summary justice rendered by private hands looks splendid in contrast. And the more incidents such as the murder of Iryna Zarutska come to light, the better the only possible alternative will seem.
For further thoughts on this subject, please refer to these essays.
No comments:
Post a Comment