Has Justice Lost its Meaning?
At the height of a country divided on essentially every issue, it is difficult to decide which side is the ‘right’ side. The questionable decisions of our American courts is a possible reason as to why so many of us are losing faith in the American criminal justice system. What should we consider to be just? Are our courts ‘just’?
It seems as though pessimism and has conquered the mindset of many Americans who have fallen victim to,(and those who have witnessed such events) in the eyes of many, an unfair and corrupt criminal justice system. Chris Coons (Democrat) and Thom Tillis (Republican), both members of the Senate, also hold the belief that our justice system is in desperate need of reform. The Center for American Progress reports that African-Americans make up 60% of the prison population. With such a staggering number of black men and women behind bars; are the judicial courts staying true to the concept of justice? And if the answer is no — should Americans maintain their trust that justice will be served?
To answer this question from the federal perspective, let’s take a look at one of many of the President’s highly disputed executive orders; the ‘travel bans’.
Executive order 13769 took effect on the 27th of January. To narrow down the groundwork of this piece of legislation — it temporarily blocked Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., and “provisionally revoked” visa holders from seven different countries (all of which are predominantly Muslim countries, hence the infamous nickname, the ‘Muslim Ban’). This move (not unexpectedly) was received with widespread backlash, with many people taking to international airports to protest. The move was met with heavy criticism by everyone, from both sides of the political spectrum, to catholic bishops and business leaders.
Those who supported the first travel ban, argued that it should not be interpreted as a ‘Muslim Ban’, but as a measure to ensure protection of our borders. Others argue that those who are traveling to or from middle eastern have always experienced extreme vetting processes, rendering this legislation as, ‘same old’. Essentially, proponents of this move hold that the travel ban was the right thing to do to improve national security.
As a result of this ban, a father was separated from his three daughters and wife. Families have been torn apart, being told that that the revocation of their visas was final. Protests have died down, but there are still children who are thousands of miles away from their mothers and fathers. A sickly man who is in dire need of surgery that can only be performed in the U.S., is being forced to wait until a medical waiver is cleared. These situations, no matter the severity, are merely necessary byproducts by those who defend the spineless travel ban, on the grounds of ‘national security’.
These stories are especially relatable to my own experiences of separation. In 2008, my parents had to figure out a way to tell their 9-year old son that Mom had to go away for a while, just until the government tells her that her legal residency issue had been resolved. I spent nearly a year without the physical presence of my mother. The amnesty program said that my mother had to travel back to her native country, and stay there until they processed her application. Meanwhile, I spent my days with different relatives, while my visibly exasperated and disillusioned dad was working a full time job, to pay off the expensive paperwork that would permanently bring her wife back home, all the while paying rent for a half empty home. I remember the feeling of desperation, each day felt eternally longer than the previous, and the only thing I looked forward was talking to Mom and my baby brother on the phone for as long as I possibly could. I can heart wrenchingly say that I can resonate with what these families are experiencing. I can also, with that same level of confidence, say that there is always light at the end of the tunnel in the face of tyrannical and inhumane pieces of legislation.
Behind these heartbreaking realities, there are also momentous specks of justice. The president’s multiple efforts to bar refugees and revoke visas, thus far, have been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Hawaii, Derrick Watson, on the premises that the president “singled out Muslims and the Islamic faith as a broad national security threat.” He further reinforced his decision by providing a statement made by the Mayor of New York.
former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani told a television show that “When [Mr. Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.
That same federal judge blocked the presidents two subsequent “watered down” versions of the original travel ban. In a symbolic and solidaristic form, this judge stood by the sentiment of a large number of people, those (myself included) who believe we are in the midst of an onslaught of xenophobia.
The short story, “Conscience of the Court”, tells the story of a black woman who is expected to be unfairly convicted of a crime she did not commit. (“senselessly” beating a man to a near death) The author sets up the story by leading readers to believe that the woman was most likely going to lose the case, since the plaintiff happens to be a white male — a powerful position to be in a court of law (or anywhere, for that matter) in 1950s America. However, upon hearing the defendants statement in her own defense, in an unexpected and unorthodox fashion, (considering the era) the judge of the presiding case, ruled that the plaintiff had abused the power of the court: “an attempt to prostitute the very machinery of justice for an individual’s own nefarious ends.” The judge recognized that the defendant had been wrongly accused and was merely acting in self-defense. There are some clear parallels between the sentiments of the judge in the short story, and the judge who thrice halted an effort to ban certain people from entering the country. A clear aspect of a devotion to the idea of justice
Any attempt to block a certain type of people to enter the country is indefensible and unforgivable. The current political administration has built quite the reputation for itself — in an utterly atrocious form. No matter the day and age, there will always be men like Donald J. Trump — but in times of trial, the voice of reason and justice will triumph, it is only a matter of how and when, but so long as people like Derrick Watson have the courage to act according to their virtuous principles — there is no injustice that can be rendered irreparable.
Sources cited:
