Whatever Became of Justice?

                Justice is slowly disappearing.  In 1973, Karl Menninger wrote a book entitled Whatever Became of Sin?  The title is worth the cost of the book.  His primary message was that things that were once considered evil, or wrong, or contemptible had begun to be deemed as sicknesses that by and large are not the perpetrator’s fault.  In the forty years since that publication, that trend has only increased in pervasiveness.  Right and wrong have been replaced by “my truth and your truth.”  Criminals are now victims of society, in need of understanding and rehabilitation.  So, whatever became of justice?

                Now, I am all for rehabilitation, but not until justice has been served.  Justice?  What’s that?  An old-fashioned idea that when a wrong has been committed a price needs to be paid.  Property damage caused by negligence needs to be compensated appropriately.  Infliction of physical harm must result in some time away from society.  Theft, be it burglary or Wall Street slight-of-hand, ought to result in both compensation and jail time.  It shouldn’t always be about rehabilitation.  It ought to be enough to simply punish an evil person, to extract a payment for an unacceptable deed.  Justice needs to be enacted simply because it is the “just,” or right, thing to do.

                Even if Menninger was right about the idea of right and wrong having boarded a train bound for yesteryear, there remains a legal code specifying various consequences for behavior still deemed unacceptable by a wimpy society.  The problem we are now faced with concerns the execution of that legal code and it’s consequences.  We are plagued by activist judges who believe they have the right, even the duty to override law enacted by the people in order to implement their own misguided ideas of justice.  Sometimes, of course, they have ulterior motives that include pandering to cronies, getting re-elected, or padding their re-election checking accounts.

                Superior Court Judge Jan Jurden must be a misguided soul.  I imagine she actually believes she is doing the “right” thing; that she is a sympathetic, caring person who uses her high office to be kind to the wayward souls brought before her bench.  Either that, or she has some ulterior motive.  Recently, this Delaware judge sentenced Robert H. Richards IV to eight years suspended jail time, meaning he will never sleep a night in prison.  He will have to check in with his probation officer  every month, but he will serve no jail time.  Why?  Because Judge Jurden believes he “would not fare well” in prison.

                I have several objections to this sentence.  Let me begin with the least important and work my way up to the only issue that should matter.  First, since when is anyone supposed to “fare well” in prison?  Since when is the perpetrator’s well-being more important than the person or persons harmed by his actions, or those who might be harmed by him in the future?  Being locked up is for the punishment and/or rehabilitation of the offender, and to keep society safe, at least for a few years, while that criminal is kept off the streets.  I really don’t care how a convicted felon “fares” in prison.  If he can’t do the time, he shouldn’t commit the crime.  And if he is a threat to others, he needs to be separated from all of us who understand the need to follow some basic laws, especially those that prohibit the harming of others.

                Second, there is some speculation that Mr. Richards IV may have been given special consideration because he is an incredibly wealthy member of the famous du Pont family.  There is no way of knowing for sure what Judge Jurden’s motives were, but there is no doubt that an appearance of evil exists concerning her sentencing of this very influential man.  Justice is supposed to be blind to prejudices concerning race, gender, national origin, and financial status, among other considerations.  Those little statues of Lady Justice present in so many courthouses should depict her wearing a blindfold and holding scales that are equal.  Adding to the appearance of evil is the fact that the state of Delaware never disclosed any details about the trial.  We only know about it because the now-former Mrs. Richards IV is suing her ex-husband.  How can any of us not at least wonder if this man’s sentence was so unbelievably light simply because of who he is?

                Third, and the one reason that ought to be able to stand alone, it is generally accepted, and has been since the days of Old Testament law, that a person’s punishment should fit the crime.  That is the very definition of justice: the quality of being just, or fair.  Of course, if that word “punishment” has been stricken from courthouse considerations, this adage is somewhat meaningless anyway.  But, I believe most people still hold to this basic belief.  There are misdemeanors and felonies.  There are stiffer penalties for deliberate acts than for negligent acts.  Sentences increase with society’s view of the seriousness of the crime.  This assumes a value system, as loosely defined as it may be, that assigns graduated values to the victims and corresponding punishments for the offenders.  Mr. Richard’s sentence, eight years of monthly probation visits, court-ordered mental health care and a fine of $4,395 (chump change for a du Pont), indicates society places a low value on the victim’s loss.  If it was deemed a serious crime, the punishment would be proportionately serious.  That was justice is, right?

                What was the crime to which he freely confessed?  He raped his three-year-old daughter.  And his ex-wife claims he also molested their son.  He raped a little girl, so he gets to check in with his probation officer once a month.  Justice?  It certainly cannot be defined by the outcome of this case.  How much is that little girl’s safety and mental/emotional future worth?  Not much, apparently.  She will have to live the rest of her life with the effects of what this male person (he’s not a real “man”) did to her.  Her future spouse and their children will have to live with the effects of this guy’s actions as well.

                But, rest easy America, he won’t be sent to prison where he “would not fare well.”  He is safe from the old-fashioned idea of fair and impartial punishment that fits the crime.  The progressive definition of “justice” has been meted out.  Thank you, Judge Jurden for protecting Robert H. Richards IV from any hardship as a consequence of his raping of a three-year-old girl.  We all feel better now.