Isn't justice supposed to be blind?
if by blindness you mean equal justice for all, yes. it's supposed to be blind.
it isn't, but it should be.
if you mean justice
at any cost? absolutely no.
'justice at any cost' is the mindset that has brought state budgets to their knees, hugely increased the tax burden of their citizens, and all but broken our system of justice itself.
the idea of fair justice is that we will agree upon laws in hopes that a threat to society will be deterred by threat of punishment.
this isn't reality -- we agree upon people that will create these laws for us. and people are corruptable.
we have laws that protect society from true threats such as murderers, rapists, thieves and on.
we've always had these laws. if human nature is a guide, we'll always have these laws.
and we'll
always punish those who break these laws.
but now we have new laws. laws which have increased exponentially in the past few decades.
laws which, ideally, truly serve and protect society.
but also laws which are created as a product of business or political interests, moral or religious dogma, or other reasons that aren't a true threat to society -- but rather a threat to the power and influence of individuals, who then try to use justice as a weapon instead of a shield.
weed is the obvious issue.
marijuana isn't a threat to society.
hasn't killed anyone. has healed many. has entertained far more.
but it's illegal. and we spend shittons of cash enforcing laws that punish people for growing and consuming a plant that isn't a threat to society, but a threat to the power and influence of individual interests. we've had to endure almost a century of propaganda and lobbying to ensure that those who create law will keep pot illegal, with absolutely no rational reason to do so.
when laws can be bought and sold, 'justice at any cost' is a big fucking problem. blind adherence to law is, with rare exception, how every judge operates. when given the raw data on how much this blind adherence to law will cost the state, it puts judges in a position to judge -- not just what's legal, but what is just.
if by some wild wonder this cost analysis catches on, you'll find plenty of people and pundits saying that this is a bad idea because X criminal will only serve X instead of X because the state can't pay for it. and yes, this is
exactly what will happen.
but any judge worth their gavel and spiffy robes
will not dismiss a true threat to society because of a budget.
they'll certainly reevaluate what is, and is not, a threat. and that's a great idea.
it may tilt the scales in favor of the judicial branch a bit, but let's be honest -- there hasn't been balance in government power for a half century, at least.
