From time immemorial societies have sought ways to regulate and control human behavior in a fair and just manner. It would appear the issues start out fairly simple, say a law stating: You shall not kill... except ...and the "except" is why there is no consistent universal code of justice.
In Part 1 we reviewed the essential requirement for control in criminal justice. In theory social justice is aimed at enabling people to realize their potential in the society where they live. Of necessity, it is subjective and qualitative and tends to be applied on the basis of emotions and feelings.
The combination of criminal and social justice is, unfortunately, readily manipulated by unscrupulous politicians, demagogues, and sociopaths to gain power. In Part 2 we examine how this conflict is playing out in society today.
In the United States many current laws are symptomatic of the conflict between the criminal justice system and agents within that have reverted to the more primitive and subjective social justice as a strategy to advance competing, self-serving, exclusive ideologies.
Rape is a time-sensitive crime to investigate. It subjects a victim to an intrusive examination to gather perishable evidence that may be more unpleasant and time-consuming than the rape itself. For many reasons, including that women are often reluctant to immediately come forward, many rapes go unreported or are difficult to prosecute.
Further, the horrific numbers of false allegations of rape, by most estimates at least 50% are false, makes peace officers skeptical of such claims without clear evidence. It is also fact that forceful rape of a woman by a stranger is a very rare crime.
These facts enrage ideologically-driven radical feminists who want social justice for any woman who claims she was the victim of any unwanted sexual relationship. So first the definition of rape was changed to sexual assault, which could be reported months or even years after the event. Further, the accusation now became proof and the man is presumed guilty unless and until he can prove his innocence. Taking it a step further, on many college campuses today a man must receive "affirmative consent" from the woman before engaging in any sexual activity. And that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual encounter or the man is guilty of rape and may be expelled without recourse or benefit of counsel in his defense after only a perfunctory hearing by a college committee.
Unfortunately, cases where criminal justice actually provides justice are becoming rarer and rarer, especially where allegations of sexual misconduct are concerned but evidence is lacking. Instead the current standard for many prosecutors is to coerce, and sometimes torture defendants into taking a plea bargain, often with the false promise their conviction will be sealed once the sentence is served. Actual guilt or innocence is of no interest.
Do you recall the name Mike Nifong? He was the district attorney who filed charges after three white members of the Duke University Lacrosse team were accused of raping black stripper/exotic dancer Crystal Mangum. Feminist faculty immediately demanded the team coach resign, the students be indicted, expelled, and their lives ruined. DA Mike Nifong was tenacious in his pursuit of "justice" for Ms. Mangum. Unfortunately, he ignored the facts and stood firmly by Ms. Mangum's side during the whole ordeal.
No matter how loud Al Sharpton cried and how much louder the complicit media amplified his and the feminist ideologues' voices, the facts won out and the hoax was revealed. Eventually Nifong was disbarred and left office in disgrace. However, Sharpton was given his usual get-out-of-jail free card. But all too many other accusations of rape are not properly investigated and men are falsely convicted.
What of the damage to those Duke University students who were snared and pushed into the churning gears of the feminist-inflamed, media-driven court of social justice? Their lives and education were destroyed based on a woman's lie that was embraced as truth by the prosecutor. And just a year after her false allegations against those white men, Crystal Mangum murdered her black boyfriend a real problem for criminal justice but without any fanfare from the feminists or media.
Another case is known as the Central Park Five where on April 19, 1989, a white female jogger was brutally raped and beaten in New York City's Central Park. Five juvenile males four black and one Hispanic were tried and convicted despite the lack of evidence linking any of them to the crime after they were frightened and coerced into making false confessions.
After they had fully served their sentences the convictions were vacated in 2002 when Matias Reyes, a convicted rapist and murderer serving a life sentence for other crimes, confessed to committing the crime alone, and DNA evidence confirmed his involvement in the rape.
DuPont heir Robert H. Richards IV, scion of the family who built the chemical empire and kin to the co-founders of a prestigious law firm, Richards Layton & Finger, raped his daughter several times beginning in 2005 when the little girl was just 3-years old.
Two years later, when the girl was 5, she told her grandmother, Donna Burg, that she was being sexually abused by her father. The little girl said her father told her it was "our little secret" but said she didn't want him doing that to her anymore, according to court documents.
His wife, Tracy Richards, after Mrs. Burg told her of the sickening abuse, confronted her then-husband and had him arrested for raping their daughter. Records indicate he was also sexually abusing his son but he has never been criminally charged for that crime.
Richards used "his family's wealth and position in the community" to hire an expensive defense team and denied the charges. But after failing a polygraph test he admitted to abusing the little girl and pled guilty to fourth-degree rape in 2008.
The usual sentence in Delaware for this crime is 15-years in prison, which many would consider too light for such a heinous act. However, Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan Jurden sentenced him to just eight years in prison but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation. She also ordered him to seek treatment and visit his probation officer monthly. Judge Jurden suspended his sentence because "Defendant will not fare well in Level 5 setting," she wrote in her sentencing order. In Delaware's correctional system Level 5 is prison.
Officials managed to keep the case away from the public spotlight until March 2014 when his ex-wife filed a lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages for abusing their daughter and son, the Delaware News Journal reported.
Currently Robert H. Richards IV is reportedly roughing it in a $1.8 million mansion near Winterthur Museum in Wilmington, Delaware, while he completes his probation.
For at least the past century juvenile justice has been more oriented towards social justice with the intention of reforming the youth and allowing them to become useful citizens of the society. A noble idea but as social justice has become more appealing the pendulum swung far to the left. Take, for example, the following case:
Ethan Couch of Keller, Texas, born April 11, 1997, was 16 on June 15, 2013, when he was witnessed on surveillance video stealing two cases of beer from a Walmart store then speeding away with seven other teenagers in his father's Ford F350 pickup truck, according to authorities and trial testimony.
Approximately an hour after the beer theft, Ethan Couch was driving his father's truck at 70 MPH (speed limit 40 MPH) or more on Retta Road, a dark, rural road near Burleson, Texas, where motorist Breanna Mitchell's SUV had stalled. Hollie Boyles and her daughter Shelby, who lived nearby, had come out to help her, as had passing youth minister Brian Jennings.
Couch's truck swerved off the road and into Mitchell's SUV, then plowed into Jennings' parked car, which in turn hit an oncoming Volkswagen Beetle. The truck then flipped over and hit a tree. Mitchell, Jennings, and both Hollie and Shelby Boyles were killed. The two children in Jennings' car and the two people in the Volkswagen survived.
The seven teens riding in Couch's truck, including two in the flatbed area and none of them wearing seat belts, somehow survived. But one of them, Sergio Molina, remains paralyzed and brain damaged after several months in a coma, and can only communicate by blinking his eye.
Local authorities said the crash scene was the most horrific they've encountered. An expert later testified Couch was still accelerating to over 70 miles an hour when he smashed into Jenning's car on the side of the road.
Ethan Couch admitted to four counts of manslaughter but defense attorneys told the court on December 4, 2013, that the spoiled teen who was facing 20 years hard time, should receive probation and not spend time in juvenile jail. They claimed Ethan Couch is the product of "profoundly dysfunctional parents" who set no boundaries and failed to supervise their son, promoting a toxic environment that led the teenager to abuse alcohol and other substances. The rich brat's legal team said he needed counseling, not hard time, and proposed sending him to a posh Southern California treatment facility that offers health spa-style accommodations, including therapy, meditation, yoga, nutrition courses, cooking classes and horseback riding, that would cost his family $450,000 a year, which his parents agreed to pay.
Testifying as an expert witness for the defense, psychologist G. Dick Miller stated that Ethan Couch was the troubled product of a broken home whose parents had divorced in 2007, who got whatever he wanted from his wealthy parents, and didn't understand consequences. Miller testified Ethan's parents had a "volatile and co-dependent relationship" with their son, basically leaving him to "raise himself." Miller called the teen a victim of "affluenza," a rich-kid syndrome that led Ethan to believe money solved everything. As a child Ethan Couch was never disciplined, abused alcohol, and had "freedoms no young person should have," including being allowed to drive when he was 13. Miller said "The teen never learned to say that you're sorry if you hurt someone...If you hurt someone, you sent him money."
Incredibly, on December 10, 2013, Texas 323rd District Judge Jean Hudson Boyd sentenced Ethan Couch to just 10-years probation and therapy at a long-term, in-patient facility after his attorneys successfully argued that the teen suffered from so-called "affluenza" and needed rehabilitation, not prison.
Apparently the judge believes Ethan has a rare condition that is best remedied by anything but dealing with the consequences for causing a drunk-driving wreck that killed four people and injured nine others.
His legal team had proposed sending him to a swanky Southern California facility and Couch's parents had said they would foot the facility's country-club price tag. But at a hearing on April 11, 2014, it was revealed that on February 19, 2014, Ethan Couch began treatment "at the North Texas State Hospital, a state-owned in-patient [lock down] mental health facility" in Vernon, Texas. Although the daily rate for the treatment facility is $715, Couch's parents have been court ordered to pay just $1,170 per month, or $14,040 a year, for his stay there. That is far short of the proposed and accepted $450,000 a year to be paid by Couch's parents, and $270,000 the facility costs the citizens of Texas.
But this wasn't young Ethan Couch's first run in with police over alcohol. In the Town of Lakeside, northwest of Fort Worth, police found Ethan Couch in a parked pickup with a 12-ounce can of beer, a 1.75-liter bottle of vodka, and a passed-out, undressed 14-year-old girl. Just before 1 AM February 19, 2013 a Lakeside officer gave Couch two citations one for being a minor in possession of alcohol, the other for consuming alcohol as a minor.
In March, Couch pled no contest in both cases. His mother paid $423 in court costs. As terms of his probation, Ethan agreed to take an alcohol awareness class and participate in 12 hours of community service, to be completed by June 19. But Couch apparently paid little attention and the fatal accident occurred just four days before his prior sentence was to be completed.
One psychologist who disagreed with Couch's sentence Prof. Suniya S. Luthar, who specializes in "the costs of affluence in suburban communities" maintains that research shows feelings of entitlement among affluent youth is a social problem, and Luthar asked:
"What is the likelihood if this was an African-American, inner-city kid that grew up in a violent neighborhood to a single mother who is addicted to crack and he was caught two or three times...what is the likelihood that the judge would excuse his behavior and let him off because of how he was raised?"
Critics have also complained that Texas District Judge Jean Boyd gave a much harsher sentence to another 16-year-old intoxicated driver 10 years earlier. In February 2004, Judge Boyd sentenced Eric Bradlee Miller to 20 years, telling him, "the court is aware you had a sad childhood...I hope you will take advantage of the services [offered by the Texas Youth Commission] and turn your life around." Miller had killed one victim, not four, and had a much lower blood alcohol level (0.11 compared to Couch's 0.24) but was from a much poorer family.
At a February 5, 2014 hearing, Eric Boyles, whose wife and daughter were killed in the crash, said: "Had he not had money to have the defense there, to also have the experts testify, and also offer to pay for the treatment, I think the results would have been different."
State District Judge Jean Boyd's decision to let Ethan Couch walk had the victims' families and citizens outraged. Citizens called on Gov. Perry to remove her from the bench. Under Texas law, the governor can remove a sitting judge with 2/3 support from Texas House and Senate members. However, Boyd has already announced she will retire when her term ends on December 31, 2014. In the meantime she is chair of the Juvenile Justice Committee of the Judicial Section of the State Bar of Texas and has previously served as Chair of the Juvenile Law Section of the State Bar of Texas, which perhaps explains many of the problems with juvenile justice.
It is probably no coincidence that the judges in the two cases above are female. In our experience women appear to be more likely to prefer subjective social justice to the harsh dictates of criminal justice.
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the principal that police forces exist to protect public safety, e.g., see Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, and have no obligation to ensure personal safety. But that isn't sufficient for many feminists who insist that society must provide them personal protection. There is also the problem for them that criminal justice only punishes crime after it occurs and can be proven. Feminists promoting social justice want to punish men before they can commit a crime.
In order to do that they have corrupted the rule of law by instituting a form of shunning known as restraining or protection orders. Because this is social justice no proof is required, hearsay is admissible, and perjury is not punished. In these cases a woman only need claim she is in "fear" of a man or there is the potential for emotional harm. The court is then required to issue her an order that destroys every civil liberty men have fought and died for, including suspending the right to keep and bear arms and driving them from their homes without due process as a condition of the ex parte court order. In the past two decades feminist ideologues have made broad use of this method against millions of men.
Similarly, public concern about violence among intimate partners has led to increasingly draconian laws that have been exploited by neo-Marxist feminists to further their agenda of destroying families and marriage in order to take control of the society and "perfect" it under the umbrella of their ideals.
By continually broadening the definition of what constitutes criminal domestic violence, radical feminists have made it possible for any woman to claim she has been assaulted, held against her will, harassed, cursed at, etc., and have a man arrested and incarcerated without a warrant or meaningful probable cause.
Only rarely does intentional violence between intimate partners rise to the level used to argue the need for these otherwise redundant, zealously prosecuted laws that are being used to promote radical feminist social justice. But those few cases make excellent propaganda for feminists who ignore the reality that intimate partner violence is gender neutral.
Decades of abuse of criminal law has convinced many men to push back with their own form of social justice. In large numbers they are refusing to marry or form intimate relationships. And given the refusal of men to marry, more and more women are having children outside of wedlock. Since single mothers are not an economically viable unit, and most require State support to survive, these actions further the original objectives of the neo-Marxist ideologues to destroy families and marriages, and thereby our Republic.
Social justice may be used directly against blacks, Hispanics, and whites as well. Between 1882 and 1968 3,445 blacks and 1,297 whites were lynched in the United States. Clearly the use of social justice is, in fact, neither rare, unimportant, or race dependent. But race often makes a convenient crutch supporting the use of social justice as retaliation for these lynchings.
Another problem is that violence by females such as the murder of Crystal Mangum's boyfriend hardly makes the local news although her lies about being raped by three white men were instantly believed and broadcast to the ends of the earth. The same could be said about the media coverage of other hoaxes like Tawana Brawley, another false white-on-black rape claim used to promote a false narrative of social injustice against blacks.
There is so little white-on-black violent crime that incidents like these are fabricated and spun in the liberal media to prop up the social justice narrative. This fabricated discrimination puts pressure on legislators, police, prosecutors, and judges to legitimize their ideology and politicizes the criminal justice system, compromising the rule of law for the glory and power of the State.
In 1998 James Byrd, Jr., who was black, was dragged to death behind a pickup truck by three white men in Beaumont, Texas. That sickening story made national news and resulted in passage of a hate-crimes law by Congress. But in 2002 when Ken Tillery, who was white, was murdered in a similar fashion by three black men the silence was deafening. It is apparently acceptable social justice when blacks kill whites.
Remember the 2002 Beltway Snipers? How disappointed the liberal media was when the suspects did not match their prejudices. The social justice narrative called for "angry white males" but instead they got two angry black males, one of whom was Muslim. The story was dropped abruptly.
Remember Don Imus' rude comment where he called a group of black female basketball players from Rutgers "nappy-headed hos"? His attempt at "humor" was insulting and he had to genuflect and kiss the ring of Grand Inquisitor Jessie Jackson. The Imus non-story was so sensationalized by the media that it all but completely eclipsed coverage of an actual crime that occurred at the same time in Tennessee: a horrific, multiple offender, black-on-white double kidnap/homicide/torture/gang rape/mutilation known as the Christian-Newsome murders.
Channon Gail Christian, 21, and Hugh Christopher Newsome, Jr., 23, were a couple from Knoxville, Tennessee. They were each repeatedly raped, tortured, and then murdered after being kidnapped the evening of January 6, 2007 when Ms. Christian's vehicle was carjacked. Four black men and one black woman were arrested and charged in the case, which received only minor notice in the press. Presumably such horrors are social justice atonement for the rape of black slave women.
Liberal media are so anxious to find evidence to feed the narrative of white-on-black violence that they jumped the gun on George Zimmerman. They profiled him! Based on his surname and neighborhood, they assumed he was white. Once the switch was flipped they could not turn it off and Zimmerman was cast by proxy in the role of white villain. But when the facts about his political orientation and racial makeup began to leak, the social justice narrative was in jeopardy. The storyline had to morph and conform to the assigned roles of black victim and white killer. First, NBC (admittedly) spliced police dispatch audio in order to mischaracterize Zimmerman to sound as though Trayvon Martin's race was the lone factor behind his call to police. Then, out of desperation to keep the narrative from derailing, the media resorted to describing Zimmerman as "white-Hispanic."
If Zimmerman had been perceived as a victim he would have been described simply as "Hispanic." If Zimmerman had been accepted to Harvard he would have been described as "Hispanic." If Zimmerman had been the subject of excessive police force he would have been described as "Hispanic." The Left controls the language. The hyphenated racial adjective, "white-Hispanic" was engineered solely to fit the social justice narrative.
If the pieces do not fit, get a bigger hammer. Enter Angela Cory - the "special prosecutor" appointed by the state of Florida. She used a sledge hammer to smash a square peg into a round hole entirely for political purposes after the county prosecutor did the right thing by not filing charges against Zimmerman due to lack of evidence.
While Ms. Cory promised "justice" the public was fed heavy doses of misinformation for a year leading up to the trial. Countless times pictures of a cute, All-American-looking twelve-year-old Trayvon Martin were shown rather than the formidable, seventeen-year-old, tattoo-faced, self-described thug he was at the time he attacked Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin was clearly not on track to be the next Dr. Ben Carson or Maurice Ashley. But you would never have known that from the information censored and then fed to the press by the special prosecutor.
Fortunately for Zimmerman, the Florida jurors did not cave to the immense pressure of media spin, indoctrination, and the self-righteous theatrics of the prosecution. To their credit the jury in the Zimmerman case acted on the facts, not the hype of a corrupt system. But that is becoming increasingly rare.
Then there was Michael Richards (AKA "Kramer" of Seinfeld fame) who lost his temper and called a black heckler the "N" word. He had to kiss Inquisitor Sharpton's ring and beg forgiveness. Next, it's Paula Deen's turn in the frying pan. None of these people committed a crime. They used rude language in a variety of contexts, one of them 27 years ago. Most recently Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame was raked over the coals for commentary stemming from his religious beliefs that outraged the homosexual lobby. Had he made these comments in Canada or England he could have been jailed for hate speech. In Colorado, one can be jailed for sending a "harassing communication," e.g., an email a woman finds offensive.
Abetted by media propaganda and the psychological intimidation of political correctness, police, judges, and prosecutors are increasingly pulled into the irrational tide of selective outrage promoted by ideologues. Consequently, the criminal justice system is increasingly advancing "social justice" over actual justice using race and sex as a tool to hammer home statist ideology.
There is little reason to believe that the United States can continue on its current path of Cargo Cult economic practices. An inevitable economic or currency collapse, perhaps both, appears imminent and a breeding ground for revolution.
The end is not pretty for supporters of the liberal State people Lenin called "useful idiots." They are the first to go. Why? They hold the highest expectation for social justice. This rapidly turns to disappointment. Disappointment turns to anger. Angry groups led by community organizers cease being virtuous victims and become a threat to the very government they put in power. The majority in their ranks are unproductive and a burden, even on the present government. Thus, they will be a drain and a threat to any new regime. They will see what real intolerance and hatred is just as have tens-upon-tens of millions beguiled and then killed by Communism in the 20th Century.
What is the remedy? The anti-Federalists gave us the Bill of Rights; in it is the First Amendment. It must have life infused back into it. It protects unpopular speech. The population at large has to stop being intimidated and learn to distinguish truth from propaganda! We must behave like free people again!
Stop running from labels! Stand up for your liberties! Do not censor yourself! Be heard! Be bold! Courage is contagious! Educate your circles of influence, family, friends, and neighbors! Vocally reject the false claims of social justice! Challenge the propaganda your children bring home from school and help others decode it! Seek the truth and spread it on social media like Facebook, Twitter, blogs, web sites, email, and all across the Internet!
The current crisis is largely the result of politicians refusing to work within the text and context of the organic laws of the United States that are codified by Volume 18 of the Revised Statutes of the United States as enacted by the 43rd Congress (A.D. 1873-1875) and published by the Government Printing Office in 1878; namely The US Constitution (supreme among the four) and The Declaration of Independence in particular. Compounding the crisis is the Supreme Court acting unconstitutionally since Marbury v. Madison when it gave itself the illegitimate power of judicial review.
The unconstitutional practice of judicial review creates volumes of "case law." Generations of case law argued by lawyers trained in that faulty reasoning takes us more often than not farther away from the fixed standard of The Law as found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Finally, vet the character of the people you elect as: governor, attorneys general, state legislator, judge, school superintendent, mayor, district attorney, and most importantly be sure you elect a Constitutional Sheriff.
Before you vote ask yourself if the candidates are informed, educated, intellectually honest, and freely and willingly accept the strictures of the Constitution? Do the candidates have the clarity to see what is happening? Do they have a record of challenging the divisive neo-Marxist forces undermining our criminal justice system and culture? Will their oaths withstand the mind-bending social justice tactics pulling our country apart? Will they help save the Republic by refusing to surrender to emotions and feelings and become a pawn and a tool of division? Will they hold to the facts and treat everyone equally? Will they publicly reject the social justice prism through which every spoken word, textbook, and news story is now measured, spun, redacted or censored? Will they champion liberty, truth and justice for all and thereby restore the Rule of Law?
Doug is a twenty-seven year veteran peace officer. The first third of his career was spent as a police officer in Chula Vista, California located just seven miles north of the U.S. Mexico border. His assignments included patrol officer, field training officer, SWAT team, and Street Team (a proactive patrol unit that targeted series-related crimes, gangs and other special enforcement projects).
Doug graduated from The San Diego County Sheriff's Academy. On the first day of the academy he attended a lecture from Sheriff John Duffy on the history and unique authority of the Constitutional Office of Sheriff. It was then that he developed a reverence for the Office and an understanding of the necessary and substantive differences between Sheriffs and Chiefs of police.
Disgusted with the infiltration of Marxist philosophy in the California criminal justice system and its near paralyzing impact on effective police work Doug moved to Idaho in 1994. The seed planted by Sheriff John Duffy determined his course; Doug became a Deputy Sheriff. His assignments included patrol, juvenile crimes detective (High School Resource Officer), and gang detective. In 1998 he was awarded the Field Services Director's Award for his work with troubled youth. Doug still serves as a criminal investigator and plans to run for Sheriff of Elmore County Idaho in 2016.
Charles Corry holds a doctorate in tectonophysics from Texas A&M and is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America. He is an internationally-known earth scientist whose biography has appeared in Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America, Who's Who in Science and Engineering, among others, for fifteen consecutive years.
After service with 1 st Marines he became involved with the early space program in 1960, doing preflight testing and failure analysis on Atlas and Centaur missiles, including all the Project Mercury birds. In 1965 he switched to oceanography and did research at both Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod. He has also taught geophysics at university and worked as a research manager for a Fortune 500 company.