Justice is and always has been an important part of social life because it sets the playing field and the underlining rules of society. Those rules applied fairly create an environment where business and individuals can foster because of the shared interest in maintaining the rule of law (An example might be how the Renaissance was influenced by certain freedoms and sharing of knowledge that led to wider innovations). In our hypothetical philosophical example justice defaulted based on variance of differences between the perpetrators and victims. The victims have no recourse and that appeared intentional to force a local social order where some are benefited and others disadvantaged (A little like a gang or cartel).
In this learning example the victims were not only out-group members but were also targeted to help enrich members of a social group (known as "The Clan"). During that process a wider network of corruption was discovered leaving victims unprotected (In this example they were really good at coordinating various elements as though it was done many times before.). The laws, the rules, the purpose of justice derailed to protect what they see as their own. While the vast majority of officials that work in these fields do so with honor and integrity, we do sometimes have social networks and extreme beliefs that can derail justice.
[It is important to support the institution and its high functioning becaue it serves an important purpose in society. Serve being a key word here. People put themselves at risk everyday to protect us and there is no higher honor than this. Think about that for a second. We respect vets because they would throw themselves into harms way to protect society. We should extend such respect to good officials who would do no less. When was the last time you put yourself at risk to help people, your commmunity or save a life? Sometimes, when rogue elements undermine that trust and the good efforts of honorable people we have to correct to improve not only functional capacity through adaptation that comes from feedback but also encourge good people to also join/serve their communities. i.e improve recruitment.]
Other victims eventually came forward to lodge complaints and the information was intentionally shared with perpetrators and retaliated against to protect "The Clan". A few have gone as far to say there is preference in local court outcomes and preferences in the very application of law (One can't say if it is true or not but it is possible based on people's concerns and realized outcomes in this hypothetical example.).
Some of the examples include intentionally damaging kids for financial gain, manipulating of sick elderly, retaliating against whistleblowers, sexual coercion of vulnerable females, missing drug money, coordinated violence/intimidation, pushing underage victims to commit suicide, cover ups of evidence, freedom of speech violations, targeting people who practice certain religions, etc. All the bad things one can think of.🤔🤨
(Again, these are just examples put together that create an understanding of some risks if a certain logic and line of thinking is used by and acted on by an inner group. If you trace those complaints and issues back you can define the edges of who is involved. Add that to other evidence from various sources and a fuller picture emerges. In this example people talk about who is and is not above the law due to these social connections. Awareness seems to be a natural check on unfettered advantage)
This would indicate in this example there is not a commitment to the health of the institution, the laws by which that institution is mandated and the essential values of the system (Its just a philosophical discussion so relax because it will have a positive end.🙆). It was easier to force the victims to accept the outcomes of hate and corruption than it was to change or adjust toward full functioning. The bad actors of a clan based system sought to protect itself and in that process the local decision makers discounted the lives and values of the victims (In the example investigations into clan members blocked but opened on people who raised concerns as pattern.)
We can of course change this and we need to do that for the health of the system as well as to protect future victims. Change can be a good thing when it takes rogue elements that work against trust in the system that negatively piggy backed on the positive societal good will toward faithful men and women who serve honorably every day. We should support a strong, functioning justice system that is in alignment with our national values and raises up lofty forefounder ideas such as liberty and justice for all. That will be hard if we do not willingly change or accept opportunities to reach to the next rung needed for a new era.
Many of us have more patriotic faith than others that justice will eventually prevail despite those who actively undermine it and the overall health/trust of the institution. (Think about the damage such networks who engage in hate and corruption do to the whole system. Really take a minute and think about it, as we seek to create high levels of trust and performance.). We have faith that good can overcome wrong and eventually can chisel away at the hearts of stone that did the opposite of what would have been expected, needed or legal. Trust in the long-term purpose versus the tempest of the times.
I looked around for some resources and found this pretty good analysis from Yale on corruption (A top notch school for rich kids. Attracts talent like Harvard. They both do a lot of research. I took three classes from Harvard. For a humble beginning guy like me that received nothing, perhaps less than nothing, from anyone I thought it was pretty cool. Notice where the hard knocks empathy comes from. My other path in life would have been a contractor and built houses or a small business owner. Choices and responsibilities....). Seems very well written. A little dated now.
Trust, Honesty, CorruptionThere are the smaller and bigger responsibilities to society. This seems fitting for this discussion.
"
Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789
*This is a hypothetical philosophical thought experiment for learning purposes. A wider point on freedom of speech and religion. A typeb model formed with 4 stages. 1. Default, 2. Dehumanization, 3. Acceptance, 4. Community resilience. Not sure if there is a 5. Thinking about it. Take with a grain of salt and feel free to aggree or disagree. Many different perspectives of the same issue and they are important issues that warrant mature dialogue. If it generates discussion it has done its duty.
