A. Justice Or the Lack of It.
The present systems including the so-called democracy, capitalism, and the free enterprise market have proved to be incapable of eradicating monetary and social injustices. While giving lip-service to justice, they promote injustice that lead to more injustices.
Often, justice is designed to be unjust. What is called justice is sometimes nothing more than the justification of the unjust. The American justice punishes the minorities more severly for the same crime than it punishes the white; because, the majority rules so.
It is not only the American president who lies under oath, most people do. Seldom a testimony is honest even under oath. Often, it contains exagerations in favor one party and exagerations against the other party.
The American court is not geared into finding the truth. Because, it depends on such testimonies. The court is a battle-ground where winning is the goal at any cost. People calculate what to say, what not to say. So long as lying stays profitable, it will continue to be a common weapon, even under oath.
Often, the jury members place their judgment on the witness demeanor which helps the good-looking or the innocent looking witness and the witness who can perform innocently and fool the jury. Afterall, looks are deceiving. That's why the criminals dress well for the court.
It is not only the white jury that gets the white cops off the hook who had beaten up a black man. It is not only a black jury that gets a black man off the hook who had killed two white people. It is not only the prosecutors who hide the evidence that favors the accused. And it is not only the defending lawyers who try to get their clients off the hook by any means, and claim insanity when all else fails! It is also the judge who often misjudges intentionally.
B. The Real Thief.
There are two kinds of thieves; those who steal a loaf of bread because they are hungry, and those who buy the bureaucrats and the politicians to multiply their wealth.
C. The Real Judge.
More than once, the democratic judges on the Florida Supreme Court tried to put the democratic candidate in the White House. They were beaten by the republican judges on the USA Supreme Court who blalantly turned the things around, and instead put the republican candidate in the white House. And these are not isolated cases.
This is why there is so much fight by different parties in electing the judges. This is why women fight to put female judges on the bench, and blacks fight to put black judges there. Judgment depends on who the judge is, and whether you have your people on the bench to lean to your side! Yet, most ethnic groups are so small that they even don't qualify as a minority in order to have a voice.
Moreover, the judges allow themselves to be wined and dined by big spenders including the `big business` in luxury seminar vacations such as those held by the ultra conservative and pro-business Law School at the George Mason University. Their money comes from the corporate sponsors, mostly from the fortune 500 who have their cases in courts. The presiding judges are usually the ones provided with those free vacations.
The law school admits that its intention is to influence the minds of the judges and their thinking while it refuses to provide the list of the money donors. By the same token, the judges insist that they don't know who is footing the bill even though it takes no big brain to figure that out. Who are these judges? Any judge including the federal and those on the supreme court of the United States.
Moreover, the American judge is not meant to be a true judge. Because, it's function is only to interpret the laws most of which have been written in the interest of the majority. To support or side the majority interest is not being impartial.
Some say
that it is impossible for anyone to be impartial. This is not a good excuse
for any judge to be blatantly partial. We even don't have a curriculum
or a teaching course to recondition the mentality of the jurors and judges,
and train them to become impartial. In fact, those who run for president
often promise to appoint judges partial to their political
ideology to the Supreme Court of
the United States.
True justice is neither liberal nor conservative. It is an impartial view equally distant from all sides. A true judge must meet three criteria:
1. One must have above average intelligence
in order to become a judge.
2. Judgments must be impartial.
3. A judge must thoroughly know
the case he/she is judging.
The typical American judge does not meet any of these criteria. He/she is usually a lawyer whereas the typical lawyer is a licensed "hired gun" trained and conditioned to be partial.
Upon graduation, there are those lawyers who are not good enough to succeed in the private sector where they can have a high income. They settle down for a far less income, and apply for prosecutorial or teaching jobs. Eventually, when a judge dies or retires, they seek to fill his chair. This makes the judges second rate lawyers.
There are also those who get into private practice, but fail in becoming successful. They too settle down for a lower income, and seek nomination for local judgeships.
The judges are nominated and elected by the people or their representatives. The conservatives elect conservative judges, and the liberals elect liberal ones. To be conservative or liberal is being partial to conservative or liberal ideals. Justice is neither liberal nor conservative. It is an impartial view equally distant from all sides. A person so elected is but a misjudge.
There must be a school to train and condition the students in becoming impartial, and get over their social likes and dislikes. Those genetically prone to be impartial are choice students.
The judges must also know the case they judge. Being overloaded, they give their cases to the law interns and law clerks to read, dig the applicable case laws, write the findings of facts, report a summary of each case, and report them to the judge. Do they think that the innocent people want to be judged by a law intern?
In fact, seldom the judge knows what a judge must know in order to make an informed judgment unless the case is a major issue watched by the news media.
Science is the only tool to distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong, and just from unjust. The courts must use the best of scientific tool available, and base their judgments on scientific grounds.
Wherever possible, they must do away with the opinions and witness testimonies because no judge or juror can be trusted to meet the three points listed above.
D. Pain of Punishment.
Two things prevent people from committing a crime: fear of pain from punishment and belief in proper conduct. It's impossible to create strong beliefs in proper conduct in everyone. There have been criminals even at the height of religious domination.
Often, the would-be criminals know right from wrong. Yet, because of the expected profits from the crime, they let down their better judgment especially if they think they can get away with it. For some, even the prospect of death penalty may not be strong enough to hold them back.
The monetary punishment is often a gimmick for the bureaucracy to increase its revenue. It is not a serious remedy, and not an equal punishment for the same crime: the more one can afford it, the less it hurts.
Kindness may steer a few to become fair, but the pain of physical punishment is the most effective way to prevent people from harming one another.
Physical pain is the only punishment that treats the rich and the poor equally. The criminals would unlikely take a second chance if their first crime was met with an excruciating pain. And the onlookers would steer away from any criminal activity if they see the criminal's pain such his nails being pulled one by one.
E. Business versus Government.
The First Amendment for the typical business is to cheat on the consumer, and get away with it, all in the name of profit maximization. Therefore, we need a government to protect the public, inspect every business thoroughly and regularly, and ensure the public safety and rights.
The budget of every inspecting agency is geared to the amount of work is has. And to increase it, the agency finds many businesses guilty when they are not. The businessman and the government agent have one thing in common. They both cheat to maximize their income.
In 1970s, a major defect in car tires forced congress and President Cater to empower the overseeing agency to monitor the tire industry. Then came President Regan, the John Wayne of politics. He undermined the agency's power to do its work by drastically cutting down the agency's budget so that they could not carry out their inspections. The result has been the major tire problem of the year 2000.
F. Administrative Injustice.
Worse yet are the administrative hearings which are courts outside of the judiciary system, and are held in every department. The department bureaucrats accuse certain citizens of illegal activity which may be true or false, and summon them to their hearing to be heard by a panel of their own.
What is odd about these hearings is the fact that each department or office is the investigator, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and the executioner, exactly the same as you can find in Saddam's government. You better watch out if they target you, and this regardless of whether you're guilty or not.
Why would they target you? The reason is this. Their departmental budget comes up for review every year. In order to justify their jobs and promotions, they try to justify their departmental budget, and ask for more. So, they have to create works to be done, show how bad the things are, and how bad they are needed to take care of them.
Perhaps, the only way to clean up the administrative agencies is to change the judicial power of their hearing panels to that of a grand jury function so that every agency would have to prove its case in an impartial court of law where the judgment would be based on preponderance of evidence.
Personal Note: I know the follies of our government. My medical license was revoked fraudulently by New York State, and the state courts refused to address the evidence of the administrative fraud.
I took my case to New Jersey where I also had a medical license, and the New Jersy Board for Medicine revoked my New Jersey license too saying that they would not undermine the decision of their sister state.
Then, I took my case to federal HHS, and their judge (misjudge is a more accurate title) rejected my appeal saying that I was not trustworthy because I did not get along with a group of physicians in our hospital (I was a member of the opposing group).
The way I have been treated by our bureaucrats is no different from the way that my father was treated by Stalin's Russia. Apparently, the government has the right to be fraudulent. But is a fraudulent government a legitimate government?
DATED: 9 October 2000
NOTE: The article above is from "Thus Speaks Zarathustra", a 4-volume book (presently not available) by Behrooz Bassim, MD. This book is a 21st century sequel to Nietzsche's 19th century masterpiece. Other pages from it on the internet are:
Abortion
Artificial
Color & Flavor
Capitalism
Civility
Darwin
Was Right So Was LaMarck
Democracy
or Isocracy
Etymology
of sacred, etc
God,
Who?
Guns
in USA
Homosexuality
Honesty
Me
Intelligence
Monetary,
A Unique Unit, A unique
Particle
Physics, Grand Spectrum
Plight
of the Mice
Politician,
The American
Race
& Class
Sermon
Sham
Justice
Soul
Is Mind
Unidirectional
Competition
Universal
Army
Universal
Language
Zarathustra
CONTACT: bassim@usadatanet.net