Systems are only as good as the people who administrate
them. When a judge engages in misbehavior there are few to no laws that will be
enforced or that will make much sense. This is often the case in places where
groups of people engage in corruption that span years with no backstops. Worse,
when the judge and a group of corrupted officers engage in coordinated
activities in order to help enrich their social networks and cleanse certain
races and religions out of an area.
This is part of a long-running experiment that some of it
might be used in a book of which one section will likely talk of the allure of corruption and how leaders seek to ensure institutions function with their essential purpose in mind. If it teaches us something about hate and corruption
that is a good thing. Take with a grain of salt but learn because the very
foundations of our republic rely on people doing the right thing and acting
with integrity in alignment with our Constitution, oaths, and artifacts.
In our thought experiment example, the behaviors were so
common and grotesque that they could happen only if a judge was aware of the
misbehaviors but decided to look in the other direction. In some cases, be willing
to participate in hate crimes and collusion. This occurs when there are other
factors outside of the intent of the law. The risk being that criminalization
and dehumanization are normalized because there are no backstops (i.e. a closed
system). Causes include hate, financial gain, and social benefit.
Let us pretend that a group of corrupted officers coached
their friends on how to set people up and target them (something they were good
at and appeared to have knowledge on how to do). The judge was aware that they
told the victims they were targeting them because of their religion while they
had a group of officers ready to swoop in (most of the officers clueless of why
they were truly there). When the set up failed some officers then terrorized the targets in order to help enrich their friends and further their extreme
ideologies (In our example it may have reached that level).
The vast majority of good officials were silenced due to the
misuse of position and power (there are lots of great officers but they can be confused by a hate narrative and many were unaware). They knew it was wrong but when the judge is in agreement and some of their bosses seemed to be part of the problem, there isn't much they can do (open retaliation common). Reporting the crimes only led to
retaliation and further targeting.
Here are some rules to consider when guaging judicial corruption and bias. When Judges Should Recuse?. As I explore this book on integrity and leadership we need to understand a full chain of logic on criminal activity. Here are a few examples of things that can be included,
-Blocked investigations into perpetrators due to social
affiliations but opened cases into whistleblowers. (seems like it would fit)
-Extreme racial, religious, and political bias against
others. The judge knew they told the targets they were going after for
religious purposes (seems like it would fit)
-Open discussions of bias within the courts. Other areas and
attorneys say they don't want to go to the "kangaroo court". There is also a type of stonewalling by some attorneys that deal with the courts regularly so as to not get on the bad side of the judge and impact their practice (Unsubstantiated but seems fairly accurate)
-Awareness of the public that an underage girl was raped and
group targeted by a few corrupted officers until she killed herself. Similar
patterns of targeting repeated against whistleblowers. Other victims came forward and a few may have been blocked from coming forward (Appears to be more of
rumor and similar patterns emerged from different perspectives)
-Victims started coming forward and it appeared the judge tried to block knowledge of the wider group (might be accurate but time will tell)
-The judge had serious political leanings and wanted to teach about "law and order" while commiting some of the biggest crimes. A type of hypocracy. (Possible and seems like an underlining intent)
-Preference for local people in outcomes which was seen as a
code word for homogeneous clan affiliations. Some of the victims were white but
practiced different religions (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc. ), some minorities, and even some Native Americans.
Many people lived in the area and predated the people known as
"local". (Seems fairly accurate)
-When there are secret collusion among corrupted officers,
the judge and the perpetrators helped enrich those within the network. (There
appeared to be coordination in crimes that could reach a certain bar of serious
federal crimes)
-When human rights, civil rights, freedom of speech and
freedom of religion are openly violated and mocked. (Appears to be accurate based on what was
said and done to fit this example well)
-Financial incentives to reward members of the clan were
present. (We have seen in the deep south and other places where courts of the
past were used as methods of exploiting wealth.)
-Knowledge of harmful activities toward kids and putting them at risk. The judge dehumanized them through their actions of supporting the manipulation and misuse of authority. (Seems fairly accurate)
-Secretive backroom off the record discussion and target lists. Failure to follow reasonable procedures (Seems fairly accurate)
-Ostracization by those who caused the problem (The judge seems connected to this group)
You get the point of so on and so forth. Justice is more important than clan affiliations because it is the foundation of social exchange. Those who are conservative by nature might find such misbehaviors inappropriate for building a strong republic where people earn on merit and not social, racial, or religious affiliations (I'm a little conservative by nature and I have the perspective that all people are created equal in value by God and that people are given talents and abilities they have a responsibility to maximize. Corruption and hate undermine human capital management).
Philosophical Discussion:
Let us say that people did engage in these behaviors and a judge was well aware that these misbehavior occurred. Instead of protecting the victims the judge allowed such behavior and never opened an investigation into the perpetrators. A good indication they were involved. Worse, they contributed to the targeting of others and the undermining of our institutions. Laws are meant to protect the public and not enrich one's friends and perspective of who is deserving of rights and those that are not. Once these things start to happen regularly it undermines the larger system and that is something we should always avoid. So it is wise to support the highest functioning systems we can and sometimes we may need to remove a judge from the bench to do that. Why should they get away with it? Who will protect future victims? Who protects ALL of the community? What is the purpose of Law & Order?
(I'm a big time supporter of wise law and order. Good officers should be retained, poor officers removed, and everything within an institution should be aligned to its essential purpose and mission. Law and order supports the foundation of social and economic exchange while corruption does the opposite.)
*This is a philosophical thought experiment for learning purposes. Feel free to leave a comment about your thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment