A reader of this blog has requested I present my model for a feasible working social order. This is no easy task and the first step of serious preparation must be the evaluation of justice. Our current system is an infrastructure of revenge. Under its premise justice is negated by tit for tat. Not necessarily eye for eye, a quota system is in place which is backed by a convoluted legal framework. The culprit’s guilt or complicity is unimportant as the quota system merely requires its own victims to pay the price. Complemented by an arbitrary justice system, which embellishes sentiment in favour of law enforcement preference, hard evidence has been reduced to sales props in court room dramas. Presumed corrupt plaintiffs and defendants rely on the power of storytelling. Thus many revenge punishments are administered to innocent victims. But even if all were guilty as charged, that would not be justice. The first step in making the move to a new social order is the comprehension that the justice system does not work and therefore is a failure.
To understand why the justice system does not deliver justice, one must first determine its objectives. Sycophants concoct glib reasoning based on assumption. Assumption determines the justice system satisfies three fundamental, but not necessarily concurrent, objectives. These are revenge, punishment and social education. It is important to evaluate every one of these objectives for credibility. Let us put them to the test and determine whether we have been fed lies to satisfy the falsehoods the elite use to keep the people stupid. The justice system’s determination for revenge is beyond question. Though there are grades of detention, the system attempts to dehumanize inmates with the ultimate goal of breaking rebellious social spirits. Punishments are administered in vengeful way and inmates are branded criminals for life. With the sporadic exception of an official pardon, criminal records encourage the ex-con to break the law in order to function in normal society. A continuation of the plausible deceit of those that back the justice system is the culprit convict is both guilty and must be remorseful of guilt. This affirms the justice system administers revenge based on quotas; convicts for crimes. Culprit convicts are neither guilty nor remorseful of guilt.
Culprit convicts are neither guilty nor remorseful of guilt? A few readers may be hurling expletives at their screens at this point, summarising me as a confirmed delusional. However, let me explain my reasoning. After explanation, some will still be in disagreement, but none will feel confident they are right. Laws act as a staple for the justice system. Law enforcement both targets and goes so far as to incite criminals via sting operations. This is because law enforcement is also based on a quota system. High profile culprits are ridiculed by mainstream media which scope the fundamental parameters for the case, aiding law enforcement prosecutors. Lawyers or barristers, parrot populist reasoning in their creation of ebullient fantasies for or against depending who they represent. Evidence act as superficial props in their grand stories and, in the case of jury trials, once the fanfare is over; the fanfare begins always in favour of law enforcement. Everyone caught up in the pantomime misses the point. The point is simple. The law is an ass as it was not created by would-be criminals determined to self-regulate. Instead it was created by those who were not even slightly affected who, for various reasons, had decided to go to war against parts of the wider social order. Thus laws create disorder. Prior to the creation of laws, short of vigilantism, there was order and no criminality. In their unmitigated arrogance, law makers have presumed they have a God-like effect on their constituents. The social elements that are targeted by law are presumed to instantly agree. That is how society concludes culprit convicts, that have not been wrongly judged, are guilty and must be remorseful of that guilt. I say, if there was a guilty party, it would be the stupid arrogance of the law itself which can neither synthesise guilt nor expect any remorse from those who are prisoners of virtue.
I met a man recently whose sister had been tortured, raped and finally murdered. The culprit convict was likely correct but was still a prisoner of virtue. The reason he had tortured and raped at least one woman to death was that is what he wanted to do. The law had neither acted as a deterrent nor had any adverse effect on his behaviour. In addition, the only reason he was processed by the justice system was it existed and he was not nor will be guilty or remorseful of his actions. However, most would agree what he did was thoroughly wrong and the pinnacle of anti-social behaviour. As an act, the torturous rape murder of another is about as bad as it gets. Don’t talk to me about age or sex, or whether the victim was a drug user or a nun. However, a sanctimonious justice system blustering about guilt and remorse is in denial of its vengefulness. So why did the culprit convict commit a crime that would be judged as as bad as it gets by wider society? Hold that thought, I will return to this after my evaluation of the justice system.
The system certainly is vengeful, but can justice be called punishment? The word punishment reinforces vengeful sentiment. In fact it goes further. It legitimises revenge, as administered by a higher force. By punishing the culprit convict the system is both sanctified and sanitized. In effect it has deflected the malicious nature of revenge and replaced it with a superficial authority. The culprit convicts that were not wrongly convicted are not punished. They, instead, are subject to the mercy of their assailants, which, in this case is the justice system. For the culprit convict to be punished, they must accept the crime (beyond fascicle court proceedings). It would be dishonest of any culprit criminal to accept any crime they committed. Crimes are committed from a disrespect of the law. Those who disrespect the law do not respect it. The law has discovered a sanctimonious rebrand of revenge in the guise of the more human punishment. There is one final observation. Satisfying the slave owner paradigm, the justice system acts as a wilful father, where all criminal constitutional offspring may be punished for transgression. However the child parent relationship is parasitic in favour of the child. A baby cannot survive without [parental] assistance. In the case of the justice system, it is both leech (child) and autocrat (parent). Its prisoners are its victims.
The autocratic ambivalence of the justice system is all too clear when considering it social re-education of culprit convicts. As very few wrongly convicted culprits receive pardons, statistics are hard to find. However personal research has pointed to an unwelcome conclusion. A surprisingly high number of would be innocent, unblemished citizens will morph into habitual criminals. The supporters who see this as further evidence validating the justice need to think again. Whereas on face value the system appears to be making a pre-emptive strike on would be criminals, whose innocence was convenient, the system itself is not beyond reproach. Therefore, why did so many innocents find the law unattractive once branded criminals, as reason to observe the law is superfluous once criminality is established? Social reconditioning is reduced to various forms of torture and drugs, which are as likely to induce psychosis as provide a social remedy. The few remedial programs aimed at improving inmates are pretty much exclusively the result of humanist interest groups and non-government initiatives or proactive cooperation’s between talented inmates and their captors. As law enforcement works off a quota system which must be perpetually maintained, the last thing the system wants is improved criminals. The unproven fact that many wrongly convicted innocents become criminals is a testament to the unmitigated failure of the prison system as a bridge to social reconditioning.
Though all prisons or correctional facilities provide recreational facilities for inmates, these are not, invariable, for the education and development would be law abiding citizens. Therefore the justice system does not re-educate offenders and its punishments are only a categorisation of self-regulated revenge of victorious over the defeated. To rehash this method of controlling society would see the failure of any ruling system. In order to design a working system, the very first remedy has to be definition of criminal behaviour and the operational administration of any opposing force. Remedies must incorporate a social solution, rather than the current band aid approach. Though, in my opinion, this is politically motivated to ensure perpetual inheritance and perpetual social divides. Be warned my system will remove all social divides and there will be no inheritance. In assessing what is criminal and appropriate measures to address criminality, why would always transcend what. That is the only way a lasting solution to torturous rape and murder might be conceived. Details of crimes are unimportant; only reasoning behind criminality. Are many crimes committed as a reaction to laws? As their rite of passage, don’t human beings like to test limits and boundaries?
Real justice will be the removal of the need of a system of control. My further model for social order will attempt to address the problem and provide an uncomfortable, yet workable solution.