National Shield of Cuba
The news came out today that President Obama plans to relax the travel restrictions to Cuba for those of us who have relatives on that island. And, I must admit that something in my heart leaped up and was glad. Please understand, this is not a political comment in any way. Rather, it is the fond hope that I will get to see some of my cousins whom I have not seen for many years, as well as meet some of my cousins whom I have never seen.
I suppose that I could try to be logical and discuss the implications of it all. I suppose that I could try to assume a neutral stance on the subject. But, I cannot. I want to see my relatives; politics can go take a jump in the lake. That is not a logical position. That is not a reasoned position. That is not a well-thought out position.
But, my thoughts do illustrate one point. There is a reason why we insist that a jury in a trial must be made up of people who have no involvement with any of the principals in the case and who have not made up their minds on the guilt or innocence of the people involved. It is impossible for me, at this time, to do an unbiased analysis of President Obama’s decision. Yet, a jury trial must reach a decision that allows people in the future to look back with the confidence that either justice or mercy or both have taken place. There are few things more destructive to a society than to wonder whether a judicial decision reflects justice and/or mercy or whether a judicial decision reflects simple bias. Such wondering can lead to a loss of faith in the justice system itself.
You see, I have the freedom to be totally one-sided on this issue. After all, my opinion, one way or another, is unlikely to change foreign policy or to bring disrepute to our country. But our judicial system is not free to be so one-sided, not if we wish our society to be a stable society. And, so, our judicial system has many rules concerning juries, evidence, witnesses, etc., Â that are not present for the private individual, like myself, or even for politicians like President Obama or Senator McCain. In fact, our judicial system is the only branch of government that is clearly charged with being totally and completely neutral about every subject that they engage.
Am I saying that our judicial system is perfect in trying to be neutral? No, it is not. That is why we have multiple appeals possible. The multiple appeals are not simply a way of “coddling” criminals. Rather, our multiple appeal system is our attempt to try to ensure the neutrality of the decisions that are taken. It is a good attempt at trying to deal with a fallen and damaged world. Nevertheless, as a previous post pointed out, that system is currently damaged by the increasing evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. Even so, it is a good attempt at trying to deal with the need for judicial neutrality and the fact that we are all fallen and damaged.
And, my Cuba story is a good example of why we need to try to ensure that our system of jurisprudence remains actively neutral to all defendants and plaintiffs.
Leave a Reply