Racism, Bigotry and the Subjectivity of Laws

Crimes are something that detracts from all of our lives as the needs of some outweigh the needs of others. Some laws don't make a lot of sense while others are extremely helpful. As a nation, we have some laws that no longer reflect the values of society and are no longer reflective of the science of crime. At the same time, many laws make sense and should be kept and improved. Whether helpful or not we should review of many of these laws and make sure they are not subjectively applied. 

There are a lot of people upset out there (as seen from protests on both sides) because they feel the justice system no longer reflects their needs. I don't believe most officials set out to create this disparity but often it is embedded in the culture and language of the justice system itself (That is not in support of people who do crimes but fail to take responsibility for them...that's a different issue). 

I'm not a legal expert, but I wonder if there is a way to create more trust in the general mechanics and application of justice. While we can't control everything that has happened in the past we can begin to focus on changing things for the benefit of the future and going forward. We owe it to future generations to consider their best interests.

Crimes are activities that take away from society violate the rights of others. There is the legal side and the moral side of crime. The legal side is defined by the state (authority) while the moral side is often defined by the culture and norms of society (i.e. religion and moral conscious). 

For example, one can commit a crime and but be morally justified. Steeling food to feed one's family in the most difficult times is illegal but not a moral crime (That is why we love Robin Hood). Another example, might be sheltering Jewish people during the Nazi Era (A state crime that is counter to standard moral behavior). 

There are also people who commit crimes and are not held to account even though they are illegal and immoral. For example, someone engaging in coordinated harassment for financial gain by exploiting racial/religious differences that could have caused serious harm to children and others. Depending on where you live it would be considered illegal and immoral but in some locations its not a problem.

If the culture and social connections discount the value of some members of their society to support their social networks and personal bias then this would be a big problem for a country. The answers are not simple but ignoring these crimes could lead to all types of problems for society that ranges from encouraging extremism and radial partisanship (both sides of the argument). 

What I can say is that we will need some central anchor for justice that reflects the value of a diversified globally connected nation (whether we want to or not). Our legal infrastructure should change to improve trust by removing unscientific laws/punishments to increase accuracy and effectiveness in reform and punishment. Getting "tough on crime" is using the best tools for the best societal outcomes.

Even if we adjusted our system to a modern world we would nevertheless be faced with different perspectives on who and when people are punished. People have all types of misbeliefs about the law that range from "all officers are...this!" and "all those people are.....that!". None of that is the complete truth. The legal system is amuck in misinformation and misguidance. 

One way to improve the system is to focus on a concept of universal justice. Universal Justice occurs when we have laws in place that are scientific in orientation and reflective of the values of society that help our nation grow and develop through solid principles (i.e. white collar and blue collar theft) that reduce business activities and erodes societal trust. Yet these laws are anchored in a concept of universal value systems that apply to all human beings and doesn't unfairly punish one group over another. 

Universal justice looks at the particular merits of each person's case and makes decisions based upon the facts and potential solutions without allowing unexamined beliefs (left over from previous generations) to make their way into the decision. For example, we don't put kids in prison for decades because they got caught with a joint (that most of the judges did at one time or another when they were young). There is the law and their is virtue and we should consider ensuring our laws are beneficial to society and reflective of a global community in which we exist.

Aristotle maintained universal beliefs of moral justice and equality that work together to create a "just" society. You can read more about the philosophy HERE. 

"The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law."=Aristotle. 

I'm a conservative by nature and believe that all human beings have value in our society. Thus, the laws should be applied in a way that allows for maximum universal justice that leads to a stable and productive society that can sustain itself politically into the future. Working on my own economic theories an important component is trust in our basic institutions in a way that unlocks human potential and common good will toward each other. I'm working on climbing Mount Everest for universal justice (even if I only make it to Base Camp 1 I made effort to help society).