Human Rights and Corruption Approach Doesn't Work Well (Hypothetical Discussion on Hate and Corruption)

We have been exploring a hypothetical philosophical discussion on hate and corruption and the allowance of such poor behaviors to protect corrupted networks that encourages mistreatment of others. The example included so far included 1. Default in Systems designed to protect the public, 2.) Dehumanization of targets and targeting and 3.) Acceptance of societal position based on superficial characteristics (not based in merit, history or true patriotism). The example is meant to explore the worst-case scenario so we can build a model on how hate and corruption works in modern life. Maybe find a few ways to avoid if needed in the future. 

The background is that a local group called "The Clan" are represented and embedded into local institutions. It is well known that that certain members of the socially connected clan are protected throughout the system including the courts (i.e. serving a homogeneous conception "local" versus the intent of law. Also an indication of why partisanship should not be encouraged among judges.). Those who complain or encourage integrity are put on target lists while any investigation into perpetrators is blocked (information on formal complaints intentionally shared). Retaliation, threats of violence, and aggression against whistleblowers are common. Multitudes of victims including rape victims (the lost suicide note rumor), sexually exploited women (shallow displays of manhood common indicating a cultural problem), out-group members (typically minorities), financially exploited, mistreatment/exploitation of vets (respect for oaths and Constitution is low), etc. have come forward and subsequently ignored.

What makes this philosophical example interesting is that there are no checks and balances and despite the many complaints and the breaking of social contracts there appears to be an intent to ensure no positive change that will protect the public is created. No reversals of corrupted decision making, no true investigations, and no intent on strengthening declining trust in the institution. The clan decision makers (the people we don’t want serving the public) and their self-interested ideologies seem to be undermining the institution at the expense of society but also at the expense of the majority of good men/women who faithfully serve the public with integrity (the people we want serving the public).

The approach that those who are trying to ensure the systems work well used human rights violations as one framework for understanding corruption. However, words like human rights and civil rights are openly mocked within clan circles and officials. Due to extreme ideologies of hate let us pretend there will never be an objective investigation into misbehaviors and continued victimization of people will continue forward into the foreseeable future (at least until the corruption can't be denied. An indication of intentionally poor decision making that harmed the public and could have saved victims). This is where people may see different purposes within the same system. A strong and functional system creates an environment where society can flourish 

(i.e. in this example there was 20 years of econonomc decline that mirrors the clan rise to power. A reversal occured around the same time that corruption was being exposed. Sheds light on the idea that corruption costs society much but isn't fully calculated. Human capital management discussion is going to come forward at some point and how corruption and hate impact that.)

The study discusses human rights as an avenue of challenging corruption. I'm not so sure it would be a good approach and in this hypothetical example human and civil rights are not seen within as having any particular value (other indications of undermining freedomod speach and religion). Thus, one might not want to use it as a full strategy to deal with openly protected misbehaviors. Moral conscious appears to be very low and in this example many of the decision makers have already made compromises that allowed a clan based corrupted network to warp outcomes. Thus, human rights/civil rights frameworks are not going to morally move the needle alone if that moral conscious is not a trait fully developed in decision makers inventory of values.  Where values, the law, and the intent of the law are not in alignment there must be another way. Time answers all questions. In this hypothetical example we are going to write a positive ending where the system learns to correct itself based on the highest standards of justice passed from one generation to the next.

"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." Albert Einstein

*This is a hypothetical philosophical example for learning purposes so take with a grain of salt. Such things are unlikely to happen in real life. Human rights and corruption: Problems and potential of individualizing a systemic problem

Anne Peters, Human rights and corruption: Problems and potential of individualizing a systemic problem, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 22, Issue 2, April 2024, Pages 538–561, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moae038