Is The Justice System Fair? - Is it selective or equal for all?

INTRODUCTION:

Greetings. For a few weeks, I have received many emails requesting that I discuss this topic. Well, I am. I am NOT an attorney. However, like all of you, I am a citizen. The law and our justice system are a concern for all of us for various reasons. There is a great deal of talk about a two-tiered justice system. This is primarily due to the issues surrounding former President Trump, Hunter Biden, and other political figures who may have been involved in similar or different forms of violations and have not been indicted or any charges being placed against them. To say this topic required a tremendous amount of research is an understatement.

The justice system functions as the cornerstone of any democratic society, and it aims to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and justice is served for all citizens. It comprises a complex network of laws, courts, and law enforcement agencies. The justice system plays a crucial role in maintaining order, resolving disputes, and punishing wrongdoers. From the investigation of crimes to the trial process and, ultimately, sentencing, the justice system is tasked with safeguarding the rights of individuals while holding them accountable for their actions. This article will discuss the various components of the justice system, exploring how it operates, its significance within society, and the challenges it faces in striving to achieve fairness and equality for all. The question is, is there fairness and equality for all?

OPINION:

I have always stated that my posts are unbiased and based on facts, but I have the right to state my opinion, which does not affect the facts. Opinions are like rear ends. Everyone has one. If we want people to respect our opinion, than we must respect others. People can always agree to disagree. It is important that we respect our justice system and its process. However, we must understand that it is not perfect. For example, the judge in Trump's case was asked to recuse himself many times, and he declined.

Taking that into consideration, here is the law on this matter. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 deals with the disqualification of district court judges, and it states in part: Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself/herself in any proceeding in which his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

In Donald Trump's case, the judge and members of his family had and have ties to the Democratic party, which clearly could be or appear to be biased. The problem is in the system. The presiding judge should not be the person to make that decision for themselves. Their decision to recuse themselves will also be biased if they are biased. An impartial panel of judges should review the prosecution or defense motions to determine if bias or a conflict of interest exists and decide if a judge should recuse themselves. Doesn't that make sense? Justice is supposed to be blind. However, is it always?

In addition, the judge made many questionable decisions in Trump's case. Three constitutional rights were denied to Donald Trump. Could this appear to be favoritism toward the prosecution? Witnesses for the defense were not allowed to be called, or if called, only certain parts of their testimony be allowed. The jury instructions were not standard instructions, giving the jury the opportunity to do what they pleased. Only certain information was allowed to be reviewed by the jury. Also. no specific charges were offered. Rather, the judge offered three possibilities, and the jury was told to rule on what they wanted, and it did not have to be unanimous. All highly irregular and NOT customary procedures.

All of these items do not follow normal court procedures in these types of cases. Guilty on 34 counts is a ruling I am sure will be overturned upon appeal, and every legal expert agrees this trial was not conducted properly. Understand that my opinion is based on the facts, not the fact that Donald Trump was on trial. These improprieties would apply to ANY case, regardless of who the defendant and prosecutors are. When judges do not follow proper procedure and a justice system that we cannot trust, the rule of law becomes chaotic.

That being said, the appeal process will begin after sentencing on July 11th.. The chips will fall where they will fall. Personally, if won on appeal, that judge will be the most laughed-at the judge in history. Our system of justice must be followed, and the appeal process corrects any wrongs that were done. Our system may not be perfect, but it is the system we have to work within. I do not believe Trump would get a fair trial in a state that is over 80% democratic and openly anti-Trump. Cases of this nature should be heard in a more unbiased area, and in the past, many trials were held in different districts to avoid this type of problem. Everyone in this country has the right to a fair and equal trial. This trial was not fair and equal. What about the gag order placed only on Donald Trump and his team? Let's not forget that one. let's look at the structure of our legal system.

COMPONENTS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM:

In an effort to summarize, the justice system has three main components. It comprises many agencies that work independently and in collaboration to maintain law and order, justice, and peace within communities and for the people who have to participate in the criminal justice system. (REFERENCE)

The first is law enforcement. There are three levels of law enforcement: local, state, and federal. Each level incorporates many jobs into its structure.

The next is the court system, otherwise known as the judicial system. This branch also has state and federal courts, which rule on matters according to jurisdiction. State courts usually handle criminal, family, civil, probate, and other cases that fall under the state's framework. Federal courts traditionally preside over constitutional issues, immigration, bankruptcy, or matters involving citizens from two or more states. The thing to remember is that federal law is written and rooted in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, Federal courts use the Constitution as a guide.

Matters on lands considered tribal can be argued in tribal courts. Therefore, there is Tribal Law.

The third is corrections. The Department of Corrections focuses on ensuring public safety by housing and rehabilitating people convicted of crimes. This is done through jails, prisons, and support systems for incarcerated individuals, such as substance abuse counseling and access to education, and a liaison for people who are released from incarceration in the probation or parole system through designated officers.

HOW THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK?

Now that we understand the justice system's basic structure let's see how it is supposed to work.

The Legal System:

The legal system, which consists of laws, statutes, and regulations established by the government, is the foundation of the justice system. These laws are enacted to maintain order in society, protect individual rights, and punish those who violate the law. The legal system provides a framework for the justice system to operate within and serves as the basis for legal proceedings.

Law Enforcement:

Law enforcement agencies, such as the police, enforce the law and investigate criminal activities. When a crime is reported, law enforcement officers conduct an investigation, gather evidence, and apprehend suspects. They are critical in maintaining public safety, preventing crime, and bringing offenders to justice.

Judiciary:

The judiciary is the branch of government responsible for interpreting and applying the law. Judges preside over court proceedings, hear evidence from both sides and apply the law to reach a legal decision. The judiciary ensures that justice is served fairly and unbiasedly and that individuals are afforded due process and a fair trial. More on this shortly.

Prosecution and Defense:

In criminal cases, the prosecution represents the government and is responsible for proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the defense represents the accused and seeks to defend their rights and refute the allegations made by the prosecution. Both parties play crucial roles in presenting their case and advocating for their respective positions in court. Often, plea deals are made to avoid a court case and gain the accused victim's cooperation.

Trial Process:

During a trial, evidence is presented, witnesses are called to testify, and both the prosecution and defense make legal arguments. The judge or jury evaluates the evidence and arguments presented and reaches a verdict based on the law and the facts of the case. The verdict determines the accused's guilt or innocence and the appropriate punishment if found guilty. Keep in mind that there are sentencing guidelines. The judge can impose a variation of those guidelines at their discretion. In a trial by jury, the jury only rules on the innocence or guilt of the accused. The judge determines the sentence the accused will serve. In various types of courts where there is no jury, the innocence or guilt of the accused is determined solely by the judge. The same judge will also determine the sentence.

Appeals Process:

After a verdict is reached, either party may choose to appeal the decision to a higher court. The appeals process allows for a review of the legal proceedings and ensures that the law was applied correctly. Appeals courts have the authority to uphold, reverse, or modify the lower court's decision based on legal arguments and evidence presented during the appeal.

The above is the justice system's process in a perfect world. However, we do not live in a perfect world. Justice is not always dished out fairly and equally, and there are things that affect this process, such as "The Court Of Public Opinion."

COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION:

In the age of social media and instant communication, the "Court of Public Opinion" concept has become increasingly influential in shaping public discourse and perceptions. This informal yet powerful system operates outside traditional legal frameworks and can impact individuals, organizations, and even governments. What are the Court of Public Opinion's dynamics, and how can its judgments have far-reaching consequences?

The Power of the Public:

The Court of Public Opinion is made up of society's collective beliefs, attitudes, and opinions. It operates through various channels, such as social media, news outlets, and public forums, where individuals express their thoughts and judgments on a wide range of issues. Unlike a court of law, the decisions of the Court of Public Opinion are often swift and unforgiving, with repercussions that can be immediate and long-lasting.

One of the critical features of the Court of Public Opinion is its ability to influence public perception. A single controversial statement or action can quickly go viral, sparking widespread outrage and condemnation. In today's interconnected world, news travels fast, and once an individual or organization is deemed guilty in the Court of Public Opinion, it can be difficult to recover its reputation.

The Role of Social Media:

Social media platforms play a significant role in amplifying the judgments of the Court of Public Opinion. With millions of users sharing and consuming content on a daily basis, a single post or tweet can be magnified and disseminated to a global audience within seconds. This rapid spread of information can lead to public shaming, online harassment, and even boycotts of businesses or individuals perceived to have transgressed societal norms.

Case Studies:

Numerous high-profile cases have illustrated the power of the Court of Public Opinion in recent years. From the MeToo movement to cancel culture, we have seen how public opinion can hold individuals and institutions accountable for their actions. For example, celebrities who have been accused of sexual misconduct have faced swift backlash from the public, resulting in the loss of endorsements, roles, and reputational damage. Boycotting of products has been a tool that has caused companies to institute change. And let's not forget protests—especially protests of a particular elected candidate. A candidate or elected officials will switch gears to avoid losing votes. Public opinion has also swayed many court cases, especially when a judge is elected.

Navigating the Court of Public Opinion:

In the face of this powerful force, individuals and organizations must be mindful of their actions and how the public may perceive them. Transparency, accountability, and genuine efforts to address wrongdoing are crucial in maintaining trust and credibility in the eyes of the Court of Public Opinion. It is also important to engage with the public in an honest and open manner and seek to understand and address society's concerns and grievances. One thing that, in many cases, is missing in today's society.

The will of the people is a powerful tool, and it holds a greater value in an election cycle. Try to forget the names of Trump and Biden for a moment and look at them as a point of reference for a moment. It's an election year, and the efforts to discredit Trump by his opponents are staggering. As many Americans view it, these cases hold no merit. For example. The case of secret documents. Documents any president is allowed to declassify and take. ONLY the president can do that. Yet, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have taken some and were not presidents, yet, they are not charged with any crime.

In trying to discredit an individual, they are only making him stronger due to The Court Of Public Opinion. The days of treating people as though they do not have a brain have been long gone. People are intelligent and can see through these scams. Americans know and are fully capable of comparing life as it is now compared to life as it has been during the Biden administration. The problem with voters is some vote based on emotions and not facts. You do not have to like the person running but must believe in their policies.

If you think about it, how many people do you see or know that could withstand what Trump has been put through? I can fully see that his methods of doing things were outside of the norm for traditional politicians. However, Trump was not a politician; he was a businessman. Controversial policies, heated rhetoric, and a strong base of supporters marked former President Donald Trump's tenure in the White House. His unique approach to governing and unfiltered communication style set him apart from traditional politicians. This generated both passionate loyalty and fierce opposition. As his term progressed, Trump's popularity fluctuated, reflecting the polarizing nature of his leadership.

Donald Trump's entrance into the political arena as a candidate for the Republican Party in the 2016 presidential election was met with skepticism and surprise by many. A successful businessman and television personality, Trump capitalized on his outsider status and anti-establishment message to appeal to voters disillusioned with traditional politicians. His promises to "drain the swamp" and prioritize America's interests resonated with a significant portion of voters, propelling him to victory over more established GOP contenders.

As Trump assumed the presidency, his unorthodox governing style continued to attract attention and generate controversy. His confrontational approach to politics, frequent use of social media, and willingness to defy conventional norms appealed to a segment of the population that felt alienated from the mainstream political establishment. Trump's defense of conservative values, tough stance on immigration, and focus on revitalizing American industries helped solidify his support among his base.

As with most presidents, throughout his presidency, Trump's popularity experienced peaks and valleys in response to various events and policy decisions. Achievements such as the passage of tax reform, the confirmation of conservative Supreme Court justices, and the negotiation of trade deals were viewed favorably by his supporters and bolstered his standing in the polls. Additionally, Trump's handling of the economy, which saw sustained growth and low unemployment rates, contributed to his approval ratings among many Americans.

However, Trump's presidency was also marked by numerous controversies and scandals that eroded his popularity among certain segments of the population. His divisive rhetoric on social issues, inflammatory remarks on race and immigration, and ongoing clashes with the media and political opponents led to a widening partisan divide and mounting criticism from the press. The impeachment proceedings stemming from his dealings with Ukraine and the chaotic response to the COVID-19 pandemic further strained his approval ratings and sowed doubt among some of his former supporters.

As Trump's term drew to a close, his popularity reached a low with the fallout from the 2020 presidential election. The refusal to concede defeat, baseless claims of widespread voter fraud, and the storming of the Capitol by his supporters in a bid to overturn the election results tarnished his legacy and led to unprecedented condemnation from both sides of the political aisle. The violent insurrection on January 6, 2021, marked a turning point in Trump's presidency, with many former allies distancing themselves from him and calls for his removal from office growing louder.

In the aftermath of the Capitol riot, Trump's approval ratings plummeted, and he became the only president in U.S. history to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives. The subsequent Senate trial acquitted him, but the stain on his reputation remained, and the events of his final days in office left a lasting impact on the perception of his presidency. As Joe Biden assumed the presidency, Trump's popularity continued to wane, with many Americans eager to turn the page on his tumultuous tenure and seek a return to more traditional leadership.

The news media further exaggerated this rise and fall. However, over time, during Biden's administration, the voters began to realize that many of Trump's predictions that would occur in a Biden presidency came true. Hence the phrase, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The answer is NO. You are not, society is not, and globally we are not. This election year will be a critical turning point for our nation and its citizens, One we must all consider heavily. It's like I tell my sister. You don't have to sleep with the man, you don't have to eat with the man, nor do you have to socialize with the man. Just ask yourself when you were better off. When your dollar went further when we didn't have millions of immigrants unvetted crossing our borders that we, the taxpayers, are supporting. How many millions more would there be in another four years?

JUSTICE IS BLIND:

The phrase "Justice Is Blind" is a powerful metaphor that encapsulates the fundamental principle of impartiality in the legal system. It signifies that justice should be administered without bias or partiality, regardless of a person's background, wealth, or social status. This concept is deeply ingrained in the core values of justice and is essential for maintaining trust and fairness in societal institutions. Is our present justice system blind? Or has it become a political tool? Some branches are referred to as a "Weaponized Justice System." Weaponized by those from a political party they support or have donated to. Is this an unbiased participant? People are beginning to see through this charade.

The phrase "justice is blind" can be traced back to ancient times. The Greek goddess Themis, who represented divine law and order, was often depicted wearing a blindfold to symbolize impartiality in judging cases. This symbolism was later adopted in the Roman legal system and has since become a universal symbol of justice.

In depictions of Lady Justice, the blindfold symbolizes her impartiality and neutrality. By covering her eyes, she is indicating that she does not see the identities or characteristics of the individuals involved in a case. Instead, she focuses solely on the merits of the case and the principles of law. This visual representation reinforces the idea that justice should be blind to external factors and should be based solely on the facts and evidence presented.

Let me ask you this: Does a judge who places a gag order on ONE individual while allowing others to attack him verbally in any way or form they choose? He cannot defend himself verbally; does that appear to be an unbiased Judge? Especially one who has donated to his opponent's election campaign and, in all rights, should not even be preciding in this case.

Despite the ideal of impartiality, the legal system is not immune to challenges. Factors such as implicit bias, systemic inequalities, and socioeconomic disparities can influence the administration of justice. It is essential for legal professionals to be aware of these challenges and actively work towards addressing them to ensure that justice is truly blind. As we have seen in many states across our great nation, I believe it is fair to say that our justice system is broken and in desperate need of repair.

IN CLOSING:

With all of the events we have seen in the past four years, from no bail, letting looters walk free, and violating our sacred constitutional rights, we must ask ourselves if the justice system is still fair and equal to all. The concept of fair and equal justice remains a complex and multifaceted issue. While the justice system is designed to provide a framework for ensuring fairness and equity, various factors such as bias, discrimination, and systemic inequalities can significantly impact the perceived fairness and equality of outcomes. It is clear that achieving perfect justice is a challenging task, as human judgments and societal influences can introduce subjective elements that may undermine the impartiality of the system.

Despite these challenges, it is crucial to continue striving for a justice system that is as fair and equal as possible. This requires ongoing efforts to address systemic injustices, promote diversity and inclusion in decision-making processes, and implement policies that strive to reduce disparities in access to justice. Additionally, incorporating alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, restorative justice practices, and community-based approaches can help provide more personalized and inclusive solutions that cater to the diverse needs of individuals and communities.

As we all know, not every judge, branch of the justice system, or those working within it is biased. Some still believe in the justice system as it was intended to be. Ultimately, while achieving absolute fairness and equality in the justice system may be an idealistic goal, it is imperative to continuously review and refine existing practices to ensure that justice is not only blind but also fair, equitable, and accessible to all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances. By actively working towards a more just society, we can build a better world for all.

This is not a one-person job. It is the job of each and every citizen in this country. It is our job to properly speak out against things we do not agree with, write to our elected officials, and make our discontent known. Should that fail, we find ourselves in 2024. A year of elections and a year and time to institute change. In this writer's opinion, to answer the question in this blog post's title. No, the justice system is NOT fair and equal for all.

I hope you enjoyed my post. Please subscribe to my blog, YouTube, or Vimeo Channels. Thank you.

Please feel free to leave comments, or if you have a topic you would like me to discuss, you can email me at crondina@caesarrondinaauthor.com. Thank you.

Be safe, stay well, and focus on being happy. And remember to always: