Justice: Aspiration, Hubris, and Morality

Sigmund Freud quipped: “The first requisite of civilization is that of justice.” Albert Einstein was quoted as saying: “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.” One madman named Adolph Hitler said: “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.” In today’s digital world of information at our fingertips, a Google search of the word justice’ returns over two-hundred-and-eleven million items. The point is, that we all know that justice has been a central topic of theory, debate, and controversy throughout recorded history (and likely since the dawn of humankind). Justice will preoccupy our minds, hearts, and hopes forever. Humans aspire to justice. But is it an arrogant assumption that human beings believe they can understand and deliver justice? Then too, is the profession of justice within our moral ability? Of course there are no universally acceptable answers to such questions, and yet if we are to hold order to civilization, there is no alternative but to attempt justice, as imperfect as it will always be. “A man is a little thing while he works by and for himself; but when he gives voice to the rules of love and justice, he is godlike” (Ralph Waldo Emerson).

Emerson used the words: “the rules of love and justice” Perhaps most persons of reason will agree that in a discussion of the virtues love’ and justice’, the most basic of rules that apply must concern that which is right, versus that which is wrong. Further, many might venture to agree that these sentiments are avowed and realized within the heart of goodwill. In each facet and phase of a discussion of justice, relative terms are unavoidably encountered; what is just to one is not to another, as what is right to one is not to another. Even so, we desire knowledge of justice, for it is a virtue to be held precious, securing us insulate from fear and consequence. Justice is the indispensable obligation of a civilization of law and order.

For the purposes of this series of articles, justice is referenced as it relates to crime and punishment in America. For the purpose of this particular article, justice within our nation’s system, is addressed from the point of view that we aspire to justice, knowing full well that the pursuit of justice is in some part hubris or arrogantly authoritative to attempt, and unavoidably begs issues of morality application.

Our world is smaller than ever due to the marvels of technology. As we are bombarded daily with media, our lives are touched by stories of justice, crime, and punishment. Many of us are directly and profoundly impacted on a personal level by the trappings of our Criminal Justice System. America has a Justice Department, ostensibly dedicated to the pursuit of justice.

Clearly, we humans seek justice within the context of crime and punishment. So many factors affect our method of justice, altering its intended nature. Many consider that justice can be bought by the hiring of a high-power attorney, or perhaps through bribery. Still others believe that our structure is intrinsically flawed because of human elements, such as mistakes, weakness, mercy, and outright corruption. Then too, many deem that our system works, for the most part, in spite of its inherent flaws. Even so, our practice of justice survives, albeit through an evolution of legislation, amendment, and precedent. We use this organization even without confidence and belief in its integrity, for it is the status quo.

Is it hubris to profess to practice justice? Perhaps. As with the concept itself, it could be argued from numerous perspectives. And, as is true with the concept of justice itself, it becomes a philosophical question, propped upon relative terms, subjective postulates, and eclectic interpretation. The mere existence of juries is evidence of the need to remove any single judgment or analysis, and perhaps objectively bring a measure of democracy to the process. Perhaps it is authoritative arrogance to perform justice in light of the array of factors involved, but it is currently our finest option. Hubris or not, we have no choice.

Regardless of human aspirations and egotism, our methods of justice are arguably a reflection of the moral character of society. Which activities are criminal and to what degree, and how we remedy each offense must necessarily stem from our collective (and at times individual) morals. Einstein said: “issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.” What does that mean? To me it means that it is people who treat other people, and therefore it’s all the same. People treat other people against or within the fabric of their beliefs, values, and morals. Thomas Jefferson is noted to have said: “I believe that justice is instinct and innate, the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as the threat of feeling, seeing and hearing.” Is it moral to put to death someone convicted of premeditated murder? Of course this is posed as a rhetorical question within the context of this article.

In conclusion, throughout recorded history humans have debated and projected justice as an obligatory function, to achieve law and order in society. Countless people have endured corporal punishment for their crimes, while countless others have been pardoned. What was heinous within the Aztec civilizations of ancient Latin America may not have been so judged in the Egyptian, or American Indian moral structure, etcetera. What is justice on earth is only human justice. Indeed it may be human arrogance to practice justice, but we have no choice but to endeavor, lest we suffer chaos. Because the concept of justice is fundamentally subjective and affected by numerous variables, the very best we can do is keep trying, refining, and evolving. This is ideally why our processes include legislators, appellate courts, remedial actions, and a Supreme Court. Our system of justice is certainly unavoidably flawed, yet we must continue to measure risk, make informed judgments, and ultimately act in accordance with our moral character, within the status quo.

© 2009, . All rights reserved.

I read an article two years ago claiming that in the year 2010 there will be two kinds of business: those who have an internet presence, and those who are going out of business. Although I do not agree with that assertion, I absolutely agree with its implication; we saw the atomic-like explosion of internet popularity in ‘Web 1.0’ (that is, before the dot-com bubble burst wide open), and the internet’s continued exponential growth currently in ‘Web 2.0-3.0’. Never has it been easier to own an internet presence. Less than ten bucks for a domain name, a nominal monthly hosting plan, and a (free) website, and you’re there! According to “Internet World Stats” (www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm), out of the 6.6 billion people in the world (in 2007), more than 1.3 billion are using the internet. North America has the highest penetration of the population, at over 70%! Wow! In North America, over 70% of the population uses the internet! Although Asia accounts for more than 56% of the total world’s population, the 2007 internet penetration estimate is less than 14% (which is still a larger number of internet users than North America: North America 238 million versus Asia with 510 million). These are some fascinating and staggering figures. I can only imagine what this year’s estimates will be. As any internet user knows, there are millions upon millions of online businesses (legitimates and not). You name it and you can find it online! In the future, there will surely still be physical, ‘brick-and-mortar’ businesses in the world that are not on the internet – absolutely – but it is evident that the bulk of the world’s economy will eventually be the internet, or whatever digital backbone follows it.

But we all know that the internet is gravely dangerous in so many ways. It is the modern day equivalent of the wild west of old. Yes, the digital age has brought us so many luxuries and conveniences, but it has also ushered in new venues for the decomposers of the world to operate, make huge money, and victimize people. There are millions of brilliant, cunning, clever, viscously shrewd “sharks” in the vast ocean of the digital ethers. There is spyware that exposes the data in your personal system, countless money scams and schemes, hackers robbing business of valuable customer data, chat rooms where people hide in the shadows watching for their prey, child pornographers, and so much more! I cannot begin to describe the “invisible” pitfalls of the internet.

So how do we protect our businesses, our homes, our children, and ourselves in the digital age? This question is continually debated, and debated, and debated some more. In the interim, there is little change. Collectively, people are not willing to trade some measure of privacy for the desired security of personalization. Even so, it is my belief that in the arena of e-security, cyber terrorism, and other internet crimes, we patrons of the internet are reactive instead of proactive in the fight against the shrewd e-beasts, e-terrorists, and e-criminals. The time has come to implement drastic changes, regulations, and therefore proactive protections.

So finally I get to the point. My IDEA is this: an “E-Pol Network”. The idea has three parts: 1) funding the E-Pol Network, 2) the structure and composition of the E-Pol Network, and 3) the challenges that must be overcome from inside and outside the network. By the way, my assumption is that the US would take the lead in this endeavor as a model for other countries.

Part One: First I must talk about funding the E-Pol Network; otherwise the idea has no feasibility. The only way I can see to “police” (for lack of a better term) the internet is through an “e-tax”. We must convince all internet businesses that it is in their best interest to support the E-Pol Network by paying a small tax, based upon their gross revenue. This pool of money funds the E-Pol Network, and is perhaps supported by some federal and/or state funds as well. Certainly there are intrinsic challenges with the funding piece of the idea (see Part 3 below).

Part Two: What exactly is an E-Pol Network? It is a network of e-pol (or e-police) “pods” that oversee and investigate internet usage within their respective region, according to an umbrella of policies and procedures that governs the entire network. So, imagine that each state is divided on an imaginary map into regions, according to population. Each region would have one e-pol pod ‘to protect and serve’ that e-community. One e-pol pod is simply one office of internet police that are watching a region. Obviously, then, each e-pol pod is part of the E-Pol Network. The “umbrella policy” would set forth the mission, the goals or mandates, and the overall procedures by which the network operates and would evolve as the system grows. The central mission of the E-Pol Network is to proactively “catch” e-crimes and e-criminals that make the internet so dangerous. The E-Pol Network would work in conjunction with the police, the Criminal Justice System as a whole, and the international police as well. This basic concept has already been shown to be effective in catching some sexual predators who use the internet as their playground, but it must be expanded to include all forms of e-crime. Again, there are challenges to overcome with this piece (see Part 3 below).

Part Three: What are some of the challenges and problems with the concept of the E-Pol Network? Perhaps at the top of the list is privacy. We are all concerned with the Orwellian idea that ‘Big Brother’ is watching, invading our personal freedoms or rights. Even though inherently within the E-Pol Network there must be some degree of privacy invasion, my belief is that the benefits outweigh the risks. Then too, if you have nothing to hide, you have no worries, except that the E-Pol Network itself might become corrupted. Which brings me to the point of E-Pol Network integrity. An oversight committee might have to be mandated. My hope is that there is a way to build and maintain the honesty of the E-Pol Network. Further, there is the matter of the e-tax funding, its parameters, and its distribution, etc. Heck, I’ll leave that one to the experts and my readers. And of course there is the issue of the policies and guidelines of the E-Pol Network. As I have stated, the central mission is fighting online criminals and crimes. Beyond that, let’s discuss it! There are a host of challenges that would come with this conceptual territory.

This idea is intended as the footings of the foundation of a structure built to protect us from the online universe. I do not claim that it is the answer to all related matters, nor do I profess to know or fully comprehend those issues. I do know that something tangible must be done now to kill the outrageous virus of e-crime.

© 2009, . All rights reserved.