Can 'Justice' be restorative? Something to think about

Ipemndoh dan Iyan

He authorized the Prosecution of Derek Chauvin for the Murder of George Perry Floyd. He is the Attorney-General of the State of Minnesota in the United States of America (USA/US). His Name is Keith Ellison and the following is what he said after Chauvin was found guilty of all the Charges preferred: "I would not call today's verdict justice … because justice implies true restoration." 

Those familiar with the Discussion of 'Justice' might have come across Arguments around 'Restitution'. I take Cognizance of these Arguments as I observe the Machinery of 'Justice' from an intellectual Perspective. Those who work within the Institution of 'Justice' and any Other with working Knowledge of 'Justice' do not necessarily have an intellectual Grasp of the Manifestation of 'Justice'. What do I mean by 'Manifestation of 'Justice''? I mean simply how 'Justice' is understood vis-à-vis its Reality. Is it a Principle? Is it a Process? Is it both Principle and Process? The Exponents of 'Justice' will proclaim that it is both Principle and Process. However, they have been unable to educate us as to how 'Justice' is a Principle. They cover up this Inadequacy by insisting that "Justice is Fairness." Instead of answering what to them seems a tasking Question, they facilitate another burdensome Question for whatever Intellect they profess to have: 'what is 'Fairness'? The furthest they have gone or the closest they have come to unentangle themselves from own constructed Conundrum is to affirm that "the Process of Justice will be fair." What they have posited here is that 'Fairness' is a Channel of achieving 'Justice'. This is really making Matters worse. That is no Expatiation of 'Justice' or of 'Fairness' or Coherence that one is the Reflection of the other, i.e., that 'Justice' and 'Fairness' are the same Value (or of the same Value), and can be interchangeable in Meaning. 

The intellectual Observer of 'Justice' - who might or not possess its working knowledge - recognizes that 'Justice' is not a philosophical Concept. In this Way, it cannot be a Principle. It is, rather, a procedural Conception; a Mechanism. It is a Device that boasts itself - explicitly and implicitly - as the Principle of 'Fairness'. Remember the 'Justice' Exponents' Mantra of "Justice is Fairness"? However, they get themselves confused as to how exactly 'Justice' and 'Fairness' are related with their other Anthem of "the Process of Justice will be fair." The intellectual Observer of 'Justice' who fully understands the Reality of 'Justice' notices that its only Relationship with 'Fairness' is conceptually to help deliver it ('Fairness').

Now, let us return to my Mention of 'Restitution' and how it features in this Discussion. 'Restitution' in its most basic Meaning is 'Return to the original State'. 'Restoration' is another Word for 'Restitution'. So, following Ellison's Logic, could 'Justice' have brought George Perry Floyd back to Life? Why is 'Justice' touted as what it is not? How did it come about that a stark Practice could be misrepresented as a Principle that it so befuddles the Human Consciousness into accepting it even as mis-sold? Is it because 'Justice' takes its meaning from the Latin Word 'Justitia' for 'Righteousness'? What is 'Righteousness'? For me, it is 'impeccable Goodness', but however, you wish to interpret 'Righteousness', it is certainly not 'Justice' as we know it, and have criticized it; "miscarriage of justice", "political interpretation of the Law" (Judges left Wing, right Wing, Liberal) and so on and so on. Whatever your Meaning of Righteousness, it definitely could not bring George Floyd back to Life. 

For those with working Knowledge only of 'Justice' without any intellectual Reference, 'Justice' is the 'End' itself rather than the 'means to an End'. For them, there is no higher Principle than 'Justice' per se, but as I have stated earlier, 'Justice' is not a philosophical Concept thus it cannot be a Principle. If they insist that 'Justice' is a Principle, then I ask them; "Principle of what?" Those Exponents of 'Justice as righteous' who are assertive would reply to me with; "Justice is the Principle of identifying Right from Wrong in Order to punish the Wrong and vindicate the Right." In this, and with this Claim, they fail. Does 'Justice' not believe that a Person who has breached the 'inalienable Right' of Another still has Entitlement to own Inalienable Right? Does 'Justice' not free the culpable from Accountability on legal Technicalities? So, where is the Function of 'Justice' here as the Principle of separating Right from Wrong when One can annul the Right of Another, but is allowed to retain and maintain own? Can 'Justice' somehow be restitutive (restorative) in certain Cases? No, it cannot. 'Justice' can only compensate. 'Justice' is compensatory, period. Even 'Fairness' cannot be restitutive by retrospective Action and 'Justice' is, in Function, retrospective Exploration.

Now, let us examine the Chauvin Murder of Floyd from a purely philosophical Perspective and let our Apologists for 'Justice' educate us on where their Proposition of 'Justice' as a Principle sits within. Here was Floyd, a Suspect, with his poor Heart Condition and Drug Abuse/Misuse. He was laid on his Stomach and handcuffed "behind-the-back" by Police Officers. There was Chauvin, one of the Police Officers. He was very conscious that Floyd was positioned on his Stomach and handcuffed to his Back. Nevertheless, Chauvin proceeded, additionally, to kneel on Floyd's Neck for over 9 Minutes. 

Chauvin had no prior Knowledge of Floyd's ill-health and self-harm Lifestyle. However, Chauvin must know that "The risk of positional asphyxia is compounded [with] an individual with predisposing factors … when physical restraint includes use of behind-the-back handcuffing combined with placing the subject in a stomach-down position." (U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice - June 1995 Bulletin titled Positional Asphyxia—Sudden Death). In other Words, Chauvin knew that Floyd was already at Risk of dying by being laid on his Stomach and his Hands restrained behind his Back. It was a Matter of Time that this Suspect, George Floyd, could die whilst under Police Arrest and in Police Custody in the "stomach-down position" and handcuffed "behind-the-back" even without putting any other Pressure anywhere else on his Body.

What the World witnessed during Chauvin's Trial was 'Justice' seeking to establish whether Floyd's Characteristics killed Floyd or it was Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's Neck for over 9 Minutes that killed Floyd. In other Words, 'Justice' was willing to blame Floyd for Floyd's own Death notwithstanding that Floyd did not lay himself on own Stomach and handcuffed himself behind own Back and knelt own Knee on own Neck for over 9 Minutes. So, where is the Question of the Right or Wrong of what Chauvin did to Floyd? I know; the Diehards among you will insist that this Question was implied - or even expressed - during the Proceedings. I agree, but what if Chauvin had been found 'not guilty'? Would that not have said that he did no Wrong in further preventing the flow of Oxygen into Floyd's Body that would have kept Floyd alive?  So, where would 'Justice as Principle' sit in such an Instance that has not decided on the Right or Wrong of Death but on the Causation of Death? Some would cry "miscarriage of justice" in such an Instance but they would be very mistaken. 'Justice' is miscarried only if its Procedure is not followed, i.e., it is abandoned, compromised, et cetera. The Verdicts in the Floyd Case were Exceptions. Many other Cases where Murderers have been acquitted and Innocents convicted have proven the Essence of 'Justice' as merely a Process. 

On the other Hand, the Quest for 'Fairness' in the Chauvin killing of Floyd would have asked the simple Question of "would Death have occurred when a Person laid on her/his Stomach and handcuffed behind her/his Back suffers the additional Strain of a Weight placed on her/his Neck for over 9 Minutes?" 'Fairness' would not concern itself with Floyd’s medical Condition and/or self-harming Lifestyle and the Fact that Chauvin was oblivious of them. Why? Floyd's Characteristics and Chauvin's prior Knowledge of them or not are absolutely irrelevant to the Question, 'Fairness' has posed above. The US Department of Justice Bulletin referred to earlier, deployed the Expression "compounded" to articulate that the Risk of Death from being laid on One's Stomach and handcuffed to One's Back is ever present whether or not there are "predisposing factors." 

In dan Iyan, I. P., Justice as Fairness: An Intellectual Faux Pas: 'Fairness'​ is Equalizing, 'Justice'​ is Disempowering, Amazon, 2014, I dealt exclusively with the Misconception of 'Justice' and the Absence of Intellectual Rigour in examining what 'Justice' is. In this Work, I reviewed the major known Thinkers on the Subject of 'the Law of Nature' aka 'Natural Law'. These Thinkers include(d) the following. (1) The Ancients in Confucius, Socrates, Aristotle, Jesus the Christ, and Muhammad the Prophet of Allah. (2) The near-Ancients in Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. (3) The modern-Era in Westel Willoughby, John Rawls, Robert Nozick, David Miller, and Manuel Velasquez et al to illustrate the incongruity of 'Justice' with 'Fairness'.

How then should we understand 'Fairness'? 'Fairness', ipso facto, acknowledges the Phenomena of Benefit and Burden. It awards Plaudits accordingly and apportions Blame correctly. 'Fairness' is 'Restitution' in the Present and in the Future. On 'Fairness', see also dan Iyan I. P., The New World Order 1986 to 1999: The Behaviour of the United States within United Nations Security Council Responses to Global Conflicts, University of Aberdeen, Google Books, 2002. 'Fairness' can never fully be retrospective but it is the only Proximation (Proximate) to "true restoration" that Keith Ellis wishes for. He has seen it in the Example for policing set by Newark Police. See Ellison's Tweet https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/1386421950612840449?s=19 

Ipemndoh dan Iyan PhM©

AsimauGlobalMedia© 

All Rights 2021

26 April