I occasionally get invited to speak to groups about the law. The topic of my most recent speech was the nuts and bolts of how the criminal justice system works in Florida.
Having engaged in speaking to groups for a couple of decades, I’ve recognized a phenomenon within the audience dynamic that I call “the sniper”. In nearly every audience there is one individual intent on awaiting an opportunity to challenge the speaker.
When the challenge is to a specific point it can be educational for the group, if the ensuing ‘debate’ explores the specific issue in greater detail. It also keeps the speaker on his/her toes by testing the basis of their knowledge. But when the ‘sniper’ challenges the speaker with a vague political agenda, it wastes the audience’s time.
At my recent speech, the “sniper” asked, “Do you support criminal justice reform?” There is no cogent answer – because the question itself is meaningless. Having heard it before, I gave my usual response, by asking the ‘sniper’: “What do you mean by criminal justice reform?”
The most common reaction to my retort is ‘deer-in-the-headlights’ silence — because those asking me about criminal justice reform rarely have any actual knowledge of the subject. It’s just fashionable in their social circle to be “in favor of criminal justice reform”.
So for those of you reading this who may be of that inclination, first ask yourself what you mean by “criminal justice reform”. Because in today’s reality the consequence of implementing that abstract concept seems to be uninhibited shoplifting — and other disintegration of civilized society.
If a person wants to engage me (or anyone else) in an educated discussion of the topic of criminal justice (and its “reform”) they should first make an effort to understand the basics — such as, what is ‘justice’.
I suggest they begin by reading Plato’s Republic, one of the most in-depth explorations of what “justice” is in an organized society. I’ve read it multiple times — and Plato seems to say “justice” is whatever the enlightened ruler (the ‘philosopher king’) say it is!
If one really analyzes Plato’s concept of justice, it’s a version of the Marxist concept ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’.
The only difference being that Plato’s republic allowed for private ownership of the means of production.
Or you can try reading something more recent. Harvard Professor John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice is considered by reform advocates to be seminal on the topic. In it you’ll find such gems as, “justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.”
Let’s take that pablum out of the realm of mental onanism and see how it applies to the real world where the rest of us have to live. If Rawls is correct, then it’s “unjust” to incarcerate shoplifters whose thefts drive up the cost of goods for the rest of us.
How is that working out in places — such as San Francisco — where criminal justice reform has been implemented? Businesses are closing all over that city because of theft and other rampant crime.
The people living in some neighborhoods there don’t feel safe, and don’t have convenient access to some basics of daily existence because many stores are closed.
And there is New York City where, apparently, “criminal justice reform” means police can be attacked with seeming impunity because the District Attorney (in the name of ‘reform’) reportedly refuses to enforce the law.
It’s beginning to resemble how Manhattan Island was portrayed in the movie ‘Escape from New York. “There are no guards inside the prison, only prisoners and the world they have made!”
When critically examined, Professor Rawls’ thesis is simply an elaborate legal facade for socialist re-distribution of wealth. As the late William F. Buckley, Jr said, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
I ask anyone agreeing with Rawls about “criminal justice reform” to explain how it’s any different than “robbing from the rich, to give to the poor” — a noble gesture for a (probably) fictional character in medieval England, but not very practical in a complex modern society.
Who decides who are “the rich” and “the poor”? The thieves themselves? Aided and abetted by government officials who refuse to prosecute them?
Even in Stalin’s “Marxist utopia” thieves were incarcerated — but then received preferential treatment over political dissidents. “In the Gulag, political prisoners were systematically terrorized by ordinary criminals with the encouragement of the authorities…” Is this the hidden agenda behind “criminal justice reform?’
So if someone advocates “reform” of the criminal justice system, they must first be able to define “justice”. I can tell you from decades of professional experience that crime victims often have a different concept of “justice” than the perpetrators who victimized them.
Whose version of “justice” are we proposing to “reform”?
Part Two will look at statistics. What Mark Twain referred to as the worst of lies (“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!”)