Democrats and the Justice System

[njd2025]

We have a justice system of secular laws. If someone breaks the law, and there's clear documentary evidence, they should be indicted, tried, convicted, and sentence to time in prison if required. We are civilized society so we have the 8th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. Ideally, we want justice to be served because most people and family members of victims want revenge and we also want a deterrence against future crimes. All good up to this point.

However, there's a lot of money to be made and human beings involved in the process make mistakes. There have been many cases of people being falsely convicted of murder, sentence to death, executed, and then exonerated by additional evidence showing up after they have been executed! Plus, because of the privatization of the prison system, making money off the judicial system has proven to be a strong motivation and source of corruption in local, county, state, and federal government levels.

Most Democrats agree we should have oversight, limits, restrictions, and enforced regulations with the privatization of prisons. And even further, many Democrats have argued for certain activities of the society, it is better to remove the profit motive altogether.

Consider the following: "This week, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to not renew contracts with privately operated prisons – a process that had been started once before during the Obama administration but was reversed under President Donald Trump. Biden cited the inherent problem of private prisons having a commercial interest of keeping inmates incarcerated as a reason for his decision. In fact, research has shown that private prisons can increase incarceration rates and lengths by several factors including corruption, lobbying, increase of capacity and higher rates of violence in private prisons leading to penalties for inmates and later releases." Katharina Buchholz

"Private prisons make a profit – an estimated $374 million annually – giving them an incentive to cut costs more than public facilities. Private facilities have been shown to hire fewer staff and train them less. They also pay less, leading to higher turnover and less experienced and well-equipped officers. An analysis of 2014 data by the Department of Justice – the only of its kind – shows that violence and infractions in private prisons are elevated. The same analysis shows that private prisons spent 12 percent less per inmate, but since they are not housing maximum security prisoners, the savings might not actually translate. Several local studies have found mixed results for private prison cost savings. Researchers from the Universities of Minnesota and New Mexico have pointed out that the structural deficits of private prisons might increase incarceration costs in the long run by lengthening sentences and increasing recidivism." Katharina Buchholz

Katharina Buchholz: https://www.statista.com/chart/24058/private-prisons/#:~:text=Private%20prisons%20make%20a%20profit,experienced%20and%20well%2Dequipped%20officers

Over the last 50 years, the privatization of all government functions has been the rage. The argument has been government is always incapable of delivery quality service and privatization would do a much better job. I'm not convinced privatization is the answer. It seems to me the allowing the privatization of government services is just a way of creating monopolies and cartels that overcharge the government. This is because private companies have overhead from excessive executive compensation and the paying out of dividends to shareholders. Plus, corporations have a legal obligation to pay the least amount of wages in order to provide the best possible return to shareholders on equity. I'm not convinced the profit motive associated with privatization does not result it the exact opposite of the claim privatization is better than government. I think many times the monopolies and cartels delivery government services may have the worse possible service at the greatest possible cost. The privatization of the prison system may be the exact evidence supporting my suspicions. The problem of how to deliver good quality government services at a good cost is a science desperately needing more attention and research.

For Democrats, the death penalty has always been an issue of concern. As I stated, many times, people falsely convicted of murder are being put to death by the state. Also, the death penalty is really a cruel and unusual punishment no matter how you look at it.

Besides the moral argument against human error and cruel and unusual punishment, I think there's another argument to be made. A common theme and expression in Eastern religion is life is suffering. I tend to agree with this sentiment. The problem with execution is it stops people from living day to day suffering they would experience living in prison. So it seems to me life in prison is a much more severe punishment than the death penalty. I think the death penalty is the easy way out.

And the last thing I want to discuss about Democrats and the justice system is around the philosophy and religion of judgment, sin, penance, and absolution. I am a proud atheist and I have a brain. So I think about the topic of God from time to time. It seems to me a God of Judgment is a lesser God than a God of Love. And if we had a God of Love, then everyone, including people like Hitler, would make it through the gates of Heaven, stare into the face of God, and experience eternal heavenly bliss.

I am assuming a God of Love is an omnipotent God. An omnipotent God is perfect, whole, complete, and not lacking in any way. Since an omnipotent God has no needs or desires, then an omnipotent God would be the definition of absolute goodness. This is because, in my opinion, our human needs and desires are the source of all that is evil in the world. Humans have limitations. And limitations create needs and desires. Our needs and desires cause us to commit acts of evil. An omnipotent God would not suffer from having any limitations. So an omnipotent God would never act our of need or desire, and therefore, would be infinitely good.

What I have found is the idea of a God of Judgment is very popular. People really like the idea of eternal suffering. I think this is because people have hate in their hearts and want revenge. People take solace and satisfaction in the idea that people who have wronged against them or others will suffer for all eternity. The idea of eternal suffering may be very satisfying for people who have hate in their hearts, but because of my atheism, I would prefer to see our system of secular justice be the primary place where judgments are passed. I don't want to trust the idea something is going to happen in the afterlife. I prefer justice in this lifetime.

Also, the problem with a God of Judgment is why would a God of Judgment make any judgments at all in the first place? What need or desire is driving a God of Judgment? It's not like God is going to die if not enough people make into Heaven. And it's not like God is going to die if too many people end up in Hell. None of this makes any sense in my brain.

So for whatever reason, why a God of Judgment feels it is important to make judgments, it's still based on some need or desire. So I am arguing a God of Love is a stronger God or greater God than a God of Judgment. This is because a God of Love has no desires or limitations. So in my way of thinking, to be God-like, you would try not to have excessive needs and desires, and at the same time, try not judge other people because everyone has limitations.

As a Democrat, I think this view of having a God of Love would translate into the formation of public policy. I think a policy position should begin from a place of understanding. People with extreme needs under extreme pressures will commit crimes. As Democrats, I think we need to promote public policies that reduce the stresses and pressures people are having.

In other words, public policies around eliminating poverty should be a priority. Providing ways for people to get their needs met should be pursued. Obviously, we are not God so there will always be an endless amount of problems. But as a principal for defining public policy goals, eliminating the causes of crime will come from the eliminating the pressures coming from people having excessive needs.

[crickets]

1. K & R for visibility.

"This week, U.S. President Joe Biden signed an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to not renew contracts with privately operated prisons – a process that had been started once before during the Obama administration but was reversed under President Donald Trump. Biden cited the inherent problem of private prisons having a commercial interest of keeping inmates incarcerated as a reason for his decision. In fact, research has shown that private prisons can increase incarceration rates and lengths by several factors including corruption, lobbying, increase of capacity and higher rates of violence in private prisons leading to penalties for inmates and later releases." Katharina Buchholz

👍