THINKING ALOUD ABOUT “JUSTICE” What does “Justice” Really Mean?

What follows here is some critical thinking about the ideas of protesting, protesters, and the call for justice. Here I want to apply the Meta-Model to the things being said and a lot of the spin being perpetuated that’s creating dis-information and confusion. I do this as a way to use NLP to help us sort things out and ultimately have respectful conversations.

The protesters say that they are protesting to get justice. They want justice for George Floyd who was cruelly killed. Sounds reasonable. And it is also the American way, “justice for all.” Further, that’s the purpose of the law and the legal system, namely, to enforce the law. That means the courts, trials to determine the facts of what happened and who is responsible for the actions under investigation, a “jury of one’s peers,” and sometimes the verdict from a judge.

Okay, so far, so good. Now let’s ask, has there been justice for George Floyd? If justice is the beginning of the legal system which takes actions to determine cause, then yes. After all, the officials in charge of the local city of Minnesota immediately fired the policemen, then 3 days later they charged the primary policeman with first degree murder. Then they put him in prison. Charges will be brought for the others. Eventually there will be a jury called, then a trial. All of that constitutes “justice” according to the law.

Given that, another question: What do the protesters now want? “Justice” as a process as we practice it in the US has begun. What more do they want?

Many of the signs the protesters are carrying say, “No justice, no peace.” As a principle, that is true. Where there is continued and systemic injustice, there’s no true peace or tranquility. But the sign is not an abstract principle, it is a threat. It says we will violently protest until we get death for death. They will riot, loot, tear things up, throw bricks, shot guns, deface buildings, burn cars and businesses, etc. until they get what they want. That is an excellent formula for continued injustice and non-peace.

In the legal sense, true justice takes time. In a murder trial, it usually takes months, sometimes years. So what? Will people keep rioting for a year? And what if the final verdict does not satisfy them? What then? This brings up the process by which justice is determined and delivered. Legally, it is delivered by the judicial system, by the court, the judge, and then by the persons he or she commissions to imprison or put to death.

This means that justice is not, and cannot be, in the hands of the protesters. That’s called a mob and “mob justice” by lynching, hanging, shooting, beating, etc. is not the way of civilized

societies. For emphasis, I will repeat that. Justice is not (and cannot be) in the hands of the protesters. That’s not their role.

What then is the role of protesters? Their role is to make their voice head, to call attention to an injustice and to communicate their idea of justice in a particular case. This brings up additional questions: How long do they have to protest until they have communicated? Have they not communicated or been heard? For a full week they have been marching and protesting and the media has carried it 24/7 ... so have they not been heard? With national politicians from both parties have commented on this case.

Haven’t they heard? And being heard, I must repeat, is not the same as carrying out justice, it is letting those in charge hear their voice. And to this day, I have not heard one person think that the policeman was justified in what he did. None! Not a single one has excused him or think that maybe he had a legitimate reason. No one! So when everybody agrees, and the authorities know full well what the protesters want — what is there to protest?

Yes they have been heard. So how long to protest? If the purpose is to communicate, and the idea has been heard, has not the protests achieved their goal? And if yes, then why continue?

Regarding the unjust and cruel death of George Floyd, there is no controversy. No body wants more of that. Everybody who has spoken has said we want no more of that. Everyone agrees it was inhuman and degrading. So signs asking for “no more killing black men” is assuming a controversy where there is no controversy. An exception never establishes a rule. The exception in this case which everybody abhors does not mean this is the basic rule of law officials. That’s a false argument.

Finally we are all okay with peaceful protests. What does that mean? A peaceful protest means no one is attacking, throwing rocks, starting fires, looting, etc. Protests are also peaceful when the time for the curfew begins, people disperse. When they do not, they are no longer peaceful. If you set bedtime at 8:30 and your kids refuse to go to bed, are they “peaceful?” Are they not being passive-aggressive? Yes, resistance to law (i.e.., lawlessness) is a form of aggression.