An Analysis of Judicial Corruption: Connections Between the Economy and Corruption and Hate

If you have been reading my blog for a while you know I am working on an economic theory based on micro transactions. That understanding rests on the hard economic principles and the softer social principles as influencing each other. During that research I came across a philosophical question of how corruption can impact economic growth? This aspect is important to explore because as corruption rises so does not only the loss to economic opportunity but also healthy social development and cohesion.

A fundamental question essentially, "What might be the impact of corruption (distorted micro transactions) and hate (limiting transactional potential) on the economy?" That in turn lets us look at things that can help build strong communities and with some luck economic clusters (potentially new industries. Unlikely to happen if corruption wins the day). The goal being to help the community versus just a small group of societal members that enrich themselves off unfettered protections for blatant misbehaviors. If you are part of one group you get more or less protections, seen as local versus non-local have a different set of rules, if your the "wrong" kind of person (racial, religious, etc.) you have less protections. People discuss openly how some can engage in any behavior they want with no legal protections or justice (...an intentionally closed and distorted system based in what appears to be influenced by judicial bias).

Microtransaction are normal patterns of business exchange and hate representing lost human capital needed by society. Corruption and hate can limit societal growth, cohesion, and economic/social development (go figure!). As additional patterns and resources become increasingly distorted the costs to society rise as performance declines. In our example social groups determined what type of rights some should have, whether or not their families are seen as having value, or the outcomes of cases (Openly bragged about dehumanization which is then protected and rewarded by clan affiliations.). Decisions were made that were not their right to make and ran against the very foundations of social trust (i.e. backroom conversations and target lists).

With corruption we find loss of resources because of changes in normal decision-making patterns that waste societal effort (i.e. economics as choice theory). In addition, as hate based behaviors increase, we also limit social cohesion and damage full human capital utilization through reduction in incentives and safety (Go figure!). The goal of the in-group was to block certain members of society and there were no laws or remorse for these potentially serious federal violations. 

A Hypothetical Example for Learning Purposes: 

A local "clan" receives special treatment in the courts and employment. A case in point is someone wanted some money and utilized their employment and social networks through hate-based rumor spreading (dehumanization campaign to normalize aggression against good people) to radicalize an existing corrupt network of officials (not including the vast majority of good officials). Whistleblowers, minorities, veteran's and out-group members were targeted in various forms that ranged from elder abuse to wholesale justice defaults.  Normal protections for freedom of speech, religion, race, etc. dismissed due to nearly non-existent checks-in-balances as courts/judge became tools for the technicalities of law and not their essential purposes (i.e. intentional misuse of the law that runs counter to the intent of law or society.).

Perpetrators were rewarded thereby normalizing hate and corruption while concerned citizens muted through retaliation and aggression. The "status quo" enforced through the misuse of law and public resources (corruption). Being designated with a "local" status comes with additional benefits (local as code word for homogeneous clan affiliation based not on the longevity of locality.). It was more than that, as the judge made decisions as to who is worthy of human/civil rights and who is above the law and its purpose. Local defined as race, religion and politics are different than local as in a geographic sense (i.e. Native Americans not seen as "local" despite predating European settlements). Victims have no/few rights under the law as practiced (We have seen this in history as a reflection of the dark side of human nature).

What makes this situation interesting is that the community rallied against some of the corrupted officials and in turn the community's economic and social prospects improved shortly thereafter.  However, because deep corruption requires specialized knowledge to uncover certain bad actors were left intact and shielded, indicating a complete judicial default (thwarting the will of the people and their pro-social needs). Investigations into perpetrators were blocked and investigations into people who complained opened. The culture of clan affiliates and internal "honor codes" being of more importance than the fundamental social contracts of society or the community itself. The possibility of judicial corruption and its impact on communities in our learning example rises. 

The following case study supports the idea that judicial corruption and hate could impact the economy in a negative way. It is importnat to fulill our oaths and values to ensure the entire system runs at peak performance. Therefore, ensuring we have people on the bench and in offices that serve the public is vitally important for long term institutional health that leads to robust development. If people engage in misconduct that will likely have an impact on economies that are based in free exchange and trust. If misbehaviors are rewarded and encouraged we run the risk of undermining the whole as trust plumments.

An analysis of judicial corruption and its causes: An objective governing-based approach

*This a hypothetical philosophical example for learning purposes so take with a grain of salt.