We are going to continue to explore the concept of how dehumanization can happen in modern society. We are doing this through the use of a hypothetical learning example of how human and civil rights were violated against minorities (including non minorities and others) in order to help and reward ethnocentric clan members (good old boy networks). Things like lying, manipulating the sick, targetings, violence, so on and so forth were well known by the local judge and still the victims were gagged and retaliated against.
We use examples like this to explore how dehumanization can occur in violation of some of our most important oaths "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" as well as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and some very important social contracts. I'm a supporter of a strong justice system that seeks to function on the behalf of the American people for the benefit of the American people. Officials must act with integrity and not make decisions based on racial, religious, political, or social affiliations.
Let us take the perspective of the victims who were targeted, humiliated publically by a group of ethnocentric clan members, false rumors spread about them, family members harmed, and in turn the judge rewarded the perpetrators. The perpetrators gleeful that local unwritten social expectations were fufilled and their immunity and benefit of social connections upheld. Others have been concerned of general bias in the system, people who are seen as above the law, dishonesty, and how social connections corrupt the local system. It appears intentional not to fix issues thereby putting the whole system in a negative light (dangerously low historical trust levels and still no concern or new paths came forward.).
A few thoughts and questions arise...
If a judge is aware of serious criminal behavior but rewarded the perpetrators should that be allowed in a high functioning justice system?
Is it possible to reverse poor decision making designed to harm targets (this isn't about getting people in trouble. Free pass as much as you want but protect others going forward if you dont have the integrity to reverse)?
Is hatred against racial, religious minorities and victims so overpowering that we should have no checks and balances when serious misconduct has occured/discovered? i.e. does the rule of law apply to everyone?
Should retaliation against victims and whistleblowers be the standard way in which we deal with these issues? Retaliation as a tool to keep victims mouths shut to protect corruption and perpetrators.
At what point should victims of serious hate crimes and judicial misconduct accept that they are second class citizens, have no rights, are discardable, and not welcome in their homeland? Would it matter if they have served their people, born there and done alot of good and they are still intentionally mistreated? Are there examples in the past and do we feel that it could no longer happen today (slavery, diseased blankets to Natives, hate crimes against Muslims/Jews/Christians, so on and so forth)?
Would judicial misconduct that promotes extremist values be another form of hate crimes? i.e using bigoted information to miscue justice to protect the clan.
What happens if we find many other victims and we knew the judge could have protected them if they did not corrupt outcomes?
What happens when the victims accept they have no rights, no recourse, and no one is going to fix those injustices from top to bottom? Can they teach about hate, corruption, and mistreatment to protect future victims and encourage fulfillment of our social contracts? How much risk should they endure and should they be retaliated against to remind them of their place in society? Is that fair to the next generation who needs that knowledge?
What values are essential to society and should be preserved from generation to generation? Are there any places where it would be immoral to discard those sacred values for hate and corruption? How should we look upon those who do intentionally violate those sacred values?
How is trust formed and why might there be declining trust in some systems? I think this can be fixed but it will take commitment to our values as a people and when there are no checks it makes it a uphill battle limiting the influence of undermining our institutions from the inside)
Could the decline of the local population, decline in economic activity, and quality of life because in part be influenced by the quality of judicial conduct and protection for criminal behavior ( In this example the economy reversed course and began to flourish when the citizens became aware of the problems and started to work to help their community. The messy power of democracy. )
Should that judge be removed if they failed at basic understanding of our most important laws and do not see the whole community as having value beyond the clan?
Who are the people who believe in the good these systems can do and are willing to fight for justice the rest of their life if needed? Who are the ones who undermine the functioning of these systems?
Should those who believe in the land of the free for all (patriotism) lay down so the people who believe in the land of free for some to get their way (nationalism)?
*This is a thought experiment to explore a default in justice (stage 1) and then dehumanization (stage 2) and its line of logic. Since it is hypothetical for learning purposes you should take with a grain of salt.
The video below discusses judicial misconduct and how there are few checks and balances.
No comments:
Post a Comment