TR 249 - The Essence of Justice
Dissecting and discussing the lessons I learned from a day of jury duty.
It finally happened.
After all these years, in so many different states, they finally caught up with me. They called me in. I got pat down and scanned with the magic wand. They ushered me into a little room. Then BAM… I got selected for jury duty!
Totally didn’t see that coming.
And so it was, I spent the day listening to lawyers banter back and forth as they made their respective cases regarding the future of the man in the chair. He was an average man by all appearances. A simple man. A hardworking man on his way home from work after a 12 hour night shift. That’s when it happened.
He was being charged with criminal hit and run—an offense that could bring down a hefty $20,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison, the loss of his commercial driver’s license, and a massive increase in insurance premiums, not to mention additional civil charges.
In other words, there was a lot on the line. This man’s future would be massively impacted by his day in court. What would the evidence reveal? What was the verdict?
You’ll have to listen to the podcast to hear the whole story!
For those reading along, this is where we’ll transition back to the news.
How does this apply?
Last night, while reflecting on the whole jury experience, I realized just how fickle the justice system is. Innocent people are charged every day, while guilty people get away with murder. That’s just how it happens. Who has the better lawyer? How astute are the jurors? Who gets to decide what “justice” actually is anyway?
Interestingly enough, it’s NOT the judge.
The judge, at least in this case, simply droned on about the legal parameters established by the state and prior legal precedent. He read a script of legalese to inform everyone what the “law” said we were and were not supposed to do. He refereed between the bickering attorneys, and he announced the jury’s verdict. That’s it.
My impression of the judge’s role was underwhelming to say the least.
We are constantly bombarded with news about some judge striking down this law or that, behaving as independent arbiters of legal power when in fact they are often little more than partisan hacks. For the record, in this local case, I do believe the judge was impartial—but this was just a hit and run, not a political hit job.
In theory, the judge determines what is legal, not what is just. Justice is determined by a jury of peers who have been randomly selected from the community at large. By extension, the takeaway here, is that justice is ultimately decided by regular everyday people—not the lawyers who present the evidence and make their case, and not the judges who so judiciously reign over the proceedings.
In the end, it’s the closed door, private deliberations of ordinary people that ultimately decide the fate of their peers, often with extraordinary consequences. People’s lives are changed forever, in an instant, based on the justice meted out by the jury. Such has been the standard practice of common law for nearly a thousand years, and the constitutionally enshrined right of every American under the sixth amendment.
Is it a flawless system? Absolutely not. But do you have a better idea?
What is justice?
We’ve explored this topic before, most specifically in TR 189 - When Police Get Political, wherein I pointed out that “justice” is the juiciest of subjective terms, I pointed out that America was founded as a country with liberty and justice for all, but that we have drifted far, far away from these ideals:
Our society has become less free and less just with every election cycle. Our republic has devolved into a democracy, and in a democracy, justice gets defined by the mob.
That report also went on to raise alarm over the UNCOPS (i.e. the international police), who are being trained and equipped to enforce “social justice” on the whole of humanity. This paragraph sums up the threat:
The first element in justice, according to UNCOPS, is the threat and/or use of force. Put differently, in order to ensure that you and I comply with their understanding of justice, they are mobilizing an international force of woke police—who along with their blue hats and batons, will be deploying AI to effectively realize Our Common Agenda, which is the global socialist state.
That’s all very disturbing, but let’s bring it back a little bit closer to home.
Throughout the national news, there are many examples of where justice shoulda, woulda, coulda been applied:
Elections officials in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona have declared they cannot certify election results in good conscience—but there are liberal judges who are attempting to force them to do so. How is this justice?
Three different so-called “Crypto Kings” have mysteriously died in a matter of weeks, at the exact same time as the Fed launched its own digital currency, causing speculation there may be foul play. Will there be justice?
Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, was convicted of seditious conspiracy and may spend up to twenty years behind bars because he was duped by FBI informants who repeatedly called for violence. Is that justice?
As you know, the list could go on, and on, and on. But what’s the point?
Is there really any justice? Will there ever be any justice? What does justice look like to you? Do you think judges imposing their political will is justice? Do you think whichever lawyer argues best is a fair determinant of justice? Do you think that politicians breaking the law and getting away with it is a picture of justice?
What do you think?
Do you think these same politicians have any incentive whatsoever to re-establish or enforce justice? Do you think the UNCOPS are going to be able to enforce justice?
Who gets to decide what justice is again? Who’s responsible for doling out justice?
That’s right, it’s just us ordinary everyday people. We are the jury.
So again, what do you think? What do you think about this one:
Five cars rented by Biden's Secret Service burst into FLAMES in Nantucket: Investigation into vehicles used by the first family
Sounds suspicious, right? But will there be any justice?
I think you know the answer. There will be no investigations. If there is an investigation, there will be no verdict. If there is a verdict, there will still be no justice. We’ve seen this all a thousand times. There is no cavalry coming.
If there was one big takeaway from my day of jury duty, it’s this: