American Law = Crap
I've been holding off on this rant for awhile, hoping that my opinion on american jurisprudence would change in time.
It hasn't.
If anything, my opinion has become solidified by case law that continues to shock the sensibilities of the human heart. I see time and time again Judges striking the gavel not in the name of justice, but injustice. Rulings that reflect a systemic problem that plagues our judiciary branch of government.
The problem eats at our hearts. The problem corrupts good men.
What's the cancerous problem I speak of?
The American judiciary does not know the meaning of justice.
Sure you have a multitude of judges purporting to know what 'justice' is and ruling a decision in accordance with their subjective wants, but there is no uniform adherence to a known objective sense of justice across the judiciary. There is no point of origin or reference point that a Judge can utilize in determining what would be justice in the circumstance at hand and what would be wrong. So the Judge is forced to turn to his socio-economic propensities. (i.e. What an old rich white guy thinks is right.)
This is not justice. This is madness.
This is where some kid interjects and says, "Oh but Samir! We have stare decisis! To protect judges from taking the law in their own hands and to protect justice!"
(Stare decisis, or for people who don't give a shit about 2nd century latin--precedent).
Stare Decisis is the self-proclaimed savior of american law, worshiped as if its the messiah or jurisdictional god incarnate. The thinking goes like this, "If we adhere to past law than we will have logical and reasonable cohesiveness in our jurisprudence." Or how I like to think of it, "If we just do what the last asshat did than we can 't fuck things up worst than they already are." This thinking results in Appellate Judges begging their subordinates to adhere to past rulings so they have less chaos and work.
The problem with stare decisis is what happens if the precedent was immoral or wrong? African-Americans and other ethnic minority groups of our nation are far too familiar with this reality. American Jurisprudence repeatedly allowed state sanctioned terrorism against its own citizens in the name of 'justice'. In the 19th and 20th century the Supreme Court would willfully let private citizens murder and slay citizens of a different race to protect legal precedent. Precedent in this case was the recognized rule of not allowing federal prosecution of individuals subjugated to state law. Their reasoning was that it would be unjust for the federal government to go beyond it's sphere of influence and that its the role of the state judiciary to prosecute individual actors.
If I could commune with the dead, I would wake these dumb asses up and say, "Hello dickwad. You do realize that the state judiciary is being placed in power by the same INDIVIDUALS who are terrorizing and murdering the citizens who need your help. Your ruling tells them to go ask for justice from the very people persecuting them! YOUR RULING IS ENDORSING THE SYSTEMATIC TERROR AND MURDER OF AN ENTIRE RACE."
The American people deserve better. The sovereignty of this country lays with the entire people, not just the privileged and entitled. We the people have the unalienable right to consent to the meaning of justice and what that meaning entails. We are entitled to have universal principles embodied in a source of reference, mutually agreed to by the people, in order that our legal system at an end of a ruling has a sense moral validity.
Some people point towards the 'glorious' U.S. Constitution for the guidance of justice. Newsflash, any document that at one point referred to another citizen as 3/5's of a human being was not created with justice in mind or with what's right. And that same "magnificent" document you care so much for has been used to provide the legal justification for discrimination and oppression against the weak.
I'm not saying the constitution is an outright bad document. I'm just saying it's purpose was not to accomplish ethical or moral guidelines for this country. It was simply a document that served as a political compromise between warring factional elitists with the goal of establishing security and economic order between rival states. Many founding fathers knew at the time that slavery was morally repugnant to the senses, but the goal of the constitution was never about the establishment of righteousness; it was about establishing control. It was about establishing power. The constitution was the institutional mechanism of how those goals would be carried out in the new american republic.
Can't we as a society come together and craft another document that can serve as guiding light for this generation?
Let's have change. Let's have reformation. Let's have justice.
Now some people claim that the laymen lacks the intellect to formulate an opinion on the ontological meaning of justice. They claim that the populace does not have ability or intellect to reach a consensus. I disagree, but lets adopt the position for arguendo, than surely the professors and students of the legal field have the intellect to come to a reaching conclusion on the matters of justice and the principles that will serve as a point of origin?
Not once in law school do we have a frank discussion on justice. What is right? What is wrong? What makes obeying the law good? What makes breaking the law bad? What are morals? Are there morals? Are there principles? Why do we have laws?
It became apparent to me that the institution of law in the united states doesn't really care about justice or morality. They care about order. They care about control. Most importantly they care about economic efficiently. When it was prudent to treat a black man as a piece of property, it was just. When it wasn't prudent anymore, it was unjust.
Who do you think benefits the most from the institution of law? The average citizen? Hell no. The law is meant to benefit the establishment. It's meant to protect them from the spooky outsider whose out to steal their money and 'hard' work.
Explain this to me: How is it 'just' that a poor man does not have the same adequate legal representation as his rich counterpart? Why do the rich have a right to more benefits and resources under the legal system?
Since when is justice measured by how much money you have in your wallet?
Do not dare tell me that this is not true.
We all know how a defendant with economic resources can hire an array of attorneys team compared to the plaintiff's lone counsel and than subsequently bury the plaintiff in pre-trial motions, discovery requests, expert witnesses, and more.
IT'S WRONG.
Under the eyes of justice both parties should be equal in representation. Justice shouldn't hinge on a price quota.
For generations, the echelons of the establishment, have churned out law students to serve their malevolent legal order. In the process they've taken free thinking individuals with gifted intellect and transformed them into little drones for the greater hive of american elitism. Justice is what the ruling elite deems it to be. Justice only changes when the ruling elite decides that it should change. Simply put, justice is whatever the guys with the most power say it is.
People point towards the civil rights movement and proclaim that justice has been restored on the streets of america.
Ludicrous.
The rampant injustice that permeates throughout american jurisprudence didn't end with the civil rights era where we were lucky enough to achieve a string of judicial victories. If you think that the law one day woke up and magically found its sense of a moral compass than think again. In our generation, I have seen travesties of justice occur on a regular basis.
Just a few..
1.We routinely put innocent men to death by capital punishment. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/10/did_texas_kill_an_innocent_man)
2.We routinely endorse the bulldozing and destroying the homes owned by impoverished for the possibility of corporate profit. (Kelo v. City of New London)
3.We routinely let sitting Presidents do whatever the fuck they want to do. You name it.. Torture.. Starting Wars.. Monitoring our private phone calls. (The Patriot Act)
There's more.
Go talk to some people in the LGBT community. Go talk to the poor. Listen to the victimized. Listen to their pleas for help.
Listen to their pleas for justice.
If we don't do anything, and if the problem is left resolved, injustice will continue to manifest itself throughout the courtrooms of america, leaving its anguished victims without redemption.
I came to lawschool because I believed in justice. I came to law school because I wanted to be an instrument of that justice.
Sadly, in roughly a year, I will leave law school as a working henchman for the establishment. During my days at court, I will not hear the gavel of justice, but will hear loud and clear the gavel of avarice.
Oh well.
At least I'll be driving a nicer car.