Restorative Justice and its discontents

A key focus of the United States legal system is a balancing — aimed at to “secur[e] public safety for the whole community, while protecting the liberty and privacy of every individual in the community.”[1] An important tool for this focus is “restorative justice,” to make whole those wronged by an unlawful act or omission. One important reason for the legal system to provide restorative justice is to instill faith, in the system’s adherents, that deference to the system (i.e. working within it) can indeed allow for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.[2]

Endless examples of the failure of restorative justice in the legal system of these federated, united States can be found in the opinions of a cavalcade of activists posing as judges and justices, such as in Roper v. Simmons (2005), where five activists cited the “evolution of standards-of-decency” to justify withholding restorative justice[3] from the family and friends of a woman who was tied up and thrown off a bridge to her death.

Lapses in restorative justice, such as in Roper, “evolve” nothing. Rather, they do nothing short of threaten to descend society into the kind of blood-feuds typical of the gangs in modern Chicago and beyond — desperation punctuated by the violence of those who believe, accurately or not, that the system cannot or will not — but, in any case, does not — provide for justice.

Still, in the myth-laden minds of progressives and other socialist psychopaths, they will continue to “evolve standards of decency” — until they need victims’ entrails, for want of a rope, to strangle[4] “implicit bias,” “patriarchy,” and all other bogeymen by which the socialists terrorize each other within their echo-chambers, all of which are built by — and sustained only by — variously envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth, and wrath.

Moreover, a sustainable criminal justice system will harmonize restorative justice and criminal rights, with justice as a priority ahead of mercy. Anything less will, at best, lead to anarchy; but, more likely, lead to constant passive-aggression that inevitably spirals into civil war.

References

[1] Joel Samaha, Criminal Procedure (10), 1-1b ¶2 (Cengage Learning, 2018).

[2] Declaration of Independence, ¶2 (United States, 1776). Compare ibid: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

[3] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, ¶5 (American Bar Association, 2005) Web. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/youth_at_risk/ROPER-v-Simmons.authcheckdam.pdf (accessed 25 Oct., 2018).

[4] One of many popular translations of the echo of famous French fanatic Denis Diderot is that, “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s