Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts

Monday, September 23, 2019

There Are No Experts in Politics, Economics, or Justice

Once you realize laws are often drafted by lobbies who care mainly about their own aggrandizement, you realize the legal system--tied to the political system--inefficiently distributes justice and is designed to promote the stability of entrenched interests. 

It is at this point many former progressives become disenchanted with broad legislation, focusing instead on tax revenues. Progressive stalwart Ralph Nader did just that when he convinced USGSA to improve safety nationwide by requiring government fleets to buy cars with airbags, using the government's power of the purse to set a higher standard for all. 

If democratic ideals are to be protected in an age of increasingly frustrated voters, we must train ourselves to look past distractions and optics. Most reform can be effectuated best at local levels, but not if local budgets become co-dependent on state and federal grants.

An example of this co-dependency is California's practice of sending local revenues, including sales taxes, to the state legislature, which then returns the revenue to municipalities based on complex negotiations. Now your police department isn't funded by locals, but by the state, corrupting community ties.

Incredibly, it gets worse. To compete with the private sector and improve employee loyalty and retention, governments began approving benefits with long-tail consequences. Pensions are the obvious example, but so are privatized toll roads, which became private when governments decided to sell future revenue streams. 

We forget governments have not always been granted infinite duration status for purposes of borrowing money, which allows them to commoditize expected taxpayer revenues. In many places, including Mexico, the government had to borrow from the Catholic Church. Only after the Mexican government discovered--or reclaimed from Catholic Spain--gold and silver mines did it have a more independent funding mechanism. Yet, even today, the most expensive building in many Mexican cities is owned by the Catholic Church. 

With respect to good governance, few experts exist, and the ones who consider themselves experts are often elevated based on single country breakthroughs. If any statement ought to inspire optimism, it's the idea that anyone, anywhere, has as good a chance to invent new practices on par with society's thought leaders--as long as they rely on comprehensively attained personal knowledge. Invention and implementation are separate functions, of course, but that explains the schism we see today: the optimists focus on new ideas, while the pessimists remind them of unintended consequences. One day, perhaps these two groups will realize they need each other and collaborate constantly to maintain a sustainable balance. 
Afghanistan War Memorial, seen in NurSultan, Kazakhstan

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (2019) 

"A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." -- Ralph Nader 

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society." -- Alexander Hamilton

"I think the first duty of society is justice." -- Wendell Phillips (1861) 

Monday, January 17, 2011

Is the U.S. Justice System Broken?

Fascinating discussion about whether the U.S. justice system is broken. Full transcript here.

Santa Clara Law Professor David Friedman actually manages to outwit Judge Kozinski in some places. (Go SCU!) But Kozinski still sounds pretty darn funny:

Judge Alex Kozinski [joking]: You know what I find? I find that half of the people love my opinions and half hate them. The first half is called the winners, and the other half is called the losers. I’ve never had somebody come up to me and say, you wrote a great opinion sticking it to me. Never.

Judge Kozinski on reverse condemnation:

The government makes mistakes in all sorts of ways that it does business, and if it were perfect, we would have a very different government and it would be a lot less costly. That is the nature of life that people make mistakes, and it is the nature of government that the government is making mistakes. The question is, are the costs of these mistakes internalized?...The question of whether or not you get just compensation, the question of whether something is a public use—-let me tell you what the debate is about there. The debate is about not whether it’s a public use or not. The question is: who decides? Do executive and legislative branch officials make that decision, or does it get decided by judges? Now, I like the idea that you think that judges and juries ought to make that decision, but actually I think there’s a lot to be said for saying that the decision of whether or not something is a public use gets made by the legislature.

Bonus: David Friedman:

I cannot resist my favorite quote on just this subject: “In nothing did the founders of this country so demonstrate their essential naiveté than in trying to restrain government from many of its favorite abuses and entrusting the enforcement of this restraint to judges; that is to say to men who had been lawyers; that is to say to men professionally trained in finding plausible excuses for dishonest and dishonorable acts.” Now, if someone can just find for me where Mencken said that, I can make sure I’ve got the quote right. Mine is by memory.

Congrats to David Friedman for going toe-to-toe with Judge Kozinski and walking away unscathed.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Extra-judicial Bonds

Once in a while, I come across an interesting comment on internet message boards. The following comment, from seamusmcdermott, is about our justice system:

This case highlights a problem in the justice system. Judges, prosecutors and police fraternize with one another and form extrajudicial bonds. These bonds reach into the courtroom with undue frequency, resulting in a system that leans unfairly towards the prosecution's case.

Judges need to be beyond such influences, but they aren't. Go to any courthouse (Hall of Justice?) in the Bay Area and visit the cafeteria. You'll see what I'm talking about. This isn't discussed much because people are largely unaware of it, or don't care, or WANT people convicted, even if they didn't commit the crime for which they are charged.

Stuff like this was behind the case recently where DNA evidence exculpated 55 death row inmates in Illinois. And the prosecutors STILL wanted to execute them, even though the DNA evidence clearly showed them to be innocent. Crazy, huh? And prosecutors are protected from civil action in these cases.