I do think that social justice can go hand in hand with any kind of justice, considering that the idea of justice is a social construct to begin with. It is a broad idea that casts a wide net. We cannot conceive the idea of justice without the social quality that we use to determine what is right and what is wrong. It is because one’s own sense of morality is developed with the influence that society has on ourselves and the people we see around us. Put most simply, I have an interaction with someone and I do not like how they acted towards me. From that point on I consider their action “wrong” or “unjust.” It’s in this way where interactions within society define what is morally sound and what is questionable behavior at best.

Elections are not without their advantages. I think when the people vote for an official, they generally care to take the time to learn a thing or two about the candidate and have an idea of what one can expect from them. The people think about what they want and what the community needs. They think about the greater good and they think about what affects their neighbors. People pay attention and make a conscious decision about the future of the community and the people in it. In this way, electing a sheriff allows the people to get acquainted with the force that is meant to protect and serve them.

The disadvantages can also weigh just as heavy. In the In the Dark podcast, it recounts an instance where a sheriff (arguably) ends up hastily closing a case to garner favor from voters just in time for the next election where he was running again for sheriff. The case in question was high-profile and he was under a lot of pressure to close the case. He was not under pressure to necessarily solve the case. He was only under pressure to close it. Everyone just wanted to point their finger at someone. Unfortunately, the wrong man was made a victim and his life was ruined. I often think back to when I learned that judges are sworn in for life specifically to prevent these incentivized decisions. Judges don’t worry about being re-elected because they don’t have to. They don’t make decisions based on the likelihood of being re-elected and are allowed to make what they deem to be the most “rightful” decision they can. That is not to say that sheriffs should be sworn in for life, but they can serve single, fixed terms. So it can be easier for them to be true to what the community needs.

First looking at Stevenson’s experience. In this point of view, the victim’s, we see this incident only for the wrongdoings that occur upon the victim’s person when they were also choices made by another living and breathing person with his own concerns and past experiences upon which to base his own choices at present. As pointed out previously, criminals are wont to avoid incriminating themselves by consenting to a search of their person or property. The officer asks to conduct a search of the man’s vehicle. He denies the request because, unbeknownst to the cop, there are in fact illegal substances inside. The cop finds no incriminating evidence. Criminal 1, Cop 0. In instance 2, the cop just searches through the car without asking and finds anthrax or something. Cop 1, Criminal 0. Although to my understanding, such evidence the officer would find would be inadmissible in court. The cop searches anyway, so I do not know if he is merely ignorant of this fact or there’s something I do not know. Is that rule enforced in any way? If the cop had found something bad in Stevenson’s car, could anything have actually been done with it? Do the courts simply not care? Getting back to the topic at hand, the context of these situations is that the suspect is potentially a guilty party. The police can’t forget that. I think that they would rather haul away a burglar than let him go free and likely rob another innocent family blind because he didn’t search the car for stolen goods. I think they value justice over another angry, anti-cop post on social media. In essence, that is ironically justice at the cost of justice. 

I don’t know where the money comes from these days. I don’t know if it is tax payer money or if the money comes from grants. I do not think it is fair, either way. It is especially unfair if it is tax payer money. I do not want to pay for anyone’s beach house and I do not think anyone wants to pay for someone else’s beach house or contribute to his 1.7 million dollar empire of properties. In saying this, I realize it is perfectly legal for him to do it. A lot of wrong things can be legal. I think It may even be a hard choice to make between up to $250,000 more a year and giving the prisoners an extra biscuit at dinner time. That is not to deny the instances of extreme starvation or malnourishment that has occurred in the past, but I might have a hard time trying to resist dipping into the fund myself if it’s entirely 100% legal. I feel like I should mention that the same sheriff also personally funded the inmates’ meals after the previous sheriff died and the entirety of the fund went to his estate. There was no money and the sheriff had to take out a loan to feed them. I don’t know about a beach house, but I would not blame him if he felt like he deserved something for that.

I think there needs to be a set of clearly defined standards of nutrition for the sheriffs to adhere to. One that is not to be seen as a minimum by sheriffs but as a standard. It would not be fair for imprisonment to worsen one’s physical health instead of maintaining it if we can help it. Feeding inmates is definitely something we can help.

We also need to consider that this isn’t the old west anymore. There is a significantly bigger amount of inmates going in and out of jails. There is a significantly bigger amount of money also going into and out of jails. We should also consider inflation as well. The law should be updated, not necessarily removed entirely.

If the Cherokee Nation lacked the authority and jurisdiction to take the opioid distributors to the local courts, then how can the same nation that denied the Cherokee still call them “sovereign?” If they lack the jurisdiction to protect their own people from foreign entities, then how can this be called self-governing? It is not self-governing if it can’t even serve its own justice.

Despite the lack of jurisdiction that the Cherokee have, I think it would still be fair to assume that they can cease the imports from opioid distributors. While this is essentially an ultimate solution to the problem they initially faced, it probably comes with its own set of problems. They wanted to regulate the opioids coming into their territories, not eliminate it. However, this is only in recognition that they still may have some power. I think they should preliminarily set terms for these kinds of exchanges in the future. They will accept the import of these goods, providing that the exporter adheres to the indigenous laws of the land. They should reserve the right to sue distributors in the tribal courts. I think this would have been a good idea in hindsight, but now I think that the Cherokee have lost power in that regard. I do not think they could afford to cut ties with opioid distributors at this point.

Some argue that we should all have a basic right to education and that it is wrong to refuse it to these children because they lack documentation. They couldn’t leave the country on their own if they wanted to; they’re children. They live here like everyone else and deserve an education if they seek it. It was further argued that the children’s desire for education was protected by the fifth and fourteenth amendments as well as the Equal Protection Clause. Specifically, the fourteenth amendment states that no state may make or enforce a law that takes away the privileges of a citizen. While these children may not necessarily be citizens, the key is in the amendment’s phrasing: “Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction.” In Plyler V. Doe, it was this upon which the basis of the court’s decision was made to allow the education of undocumented children in our jurisdiction. It is de jure that these children go through their education unhindered and unburdened as everyone else does, but it is de facto that they still see their access to basic rights questioned. They also worry about being outed to their peers as undocumented.

Others also thought to consider where the funding comes from and what that funding is intended for. School district funds come from the property tax of the local community. It is why nicer schools tend to be closer to nicer and pricier neighborhoods and poorer communities are closer to poorer schools. Now what are taxes intended to do? They are meant to support and serve the community and citizens. I can see why some people would not be as supportive, considering that their taxes are going towards the welfare of those who are not documented and are not citizens.

Either way it goes, every issue I hear concerning immigration and the acceptance and support or lack thereof for undocumented people keeps bringing me back to the actual immigration process. I feel as if each and every one of these issues is just a product of one and we are arguing and stressing over the wrong thing. All the issues seem to suggest that the immigration process is too difficult and superfluous.

The kind of corruption that is allowed to happen in any kind of official legal process is absolutely and utterly shameful. I would view anything official as one of the highest authority in its respective territory and it always disappoints me to see something like this to be allowed to happen. It is through political motivations that I think hinders our pursuit for justice greatly. When corruption has its way, it is a spit in the face of justice and all that is good. If Marsellus had not taken bribes or been worried about his status on the pardon board, he may have saved Tim Baldwins’s life and the life of any others that Marsellus had foolishly and carelessly condemned. If Baldwin was innocent, they would have been one step closer to attaining true justice. It is a shame that political motivations are so often placed above someone’s welfare, but I don’t think corruption can be fixed. People are people and it is only natural that human error slips through the cracks here and there for as long as we are humans with feelings and desires.

While it is technically a preconceived notion that the rich are so much better off in these situations, I think that it is an assumption based on some truth. Acknowledging this, however, that is not to say that the criminal court is inherently unfair to the poor. I believe that the criminal court is fair to the poor in that it works as intended for them. Since the poor don't have a bunch of money driven variables to throw into the mix, all that is left are the rules and policies that are in place. It seems to me that the court system has a poor or otherwise neutral defendant in mind while leaving the potential for the rich unchecked. So I also believe, that the rich have unfair access to a crucial advantage. They post bail with relative ease which then allows them to go on to work on their case and avoid wearing jail clothes on their court date, making them more relatable. They also the resources to appoint a legal counsel who also has their own resources that will gain them further advantage. I think an interesting idea would be to find a way to equalize both sides in court, one that either limits legal spending in some way or something involving court-appointed lawyers. This way the chance that capital assets will serve a significant advantage is mitigated and a truly fair trial can commence.

Some people think that the poor may be targeted by law enforcement. We can’t ignore any of their wrongdoings, but why would they be so enticing to prosecute? If anyone is targeted, I think it would be the rich, since no one has any reason to be envious of the poor. I go on to think that the poor aren’t necessarily targeted, but the rich are actively avoided since they have more influence.

Deportation itself is being looked at like some kind of immoral practice, but I think that it is unfairly being made a target. What could be unfair, however, is the immigration process itself. I feel as though most if not all of the misfortune that someone experiences as a result of their deportation is only a product of a shoddy immigration process. I think that it could just be too hard to become a legal citizen. If someone can spend thirty years making a life for themselves in America, pay taxes and be an upstanding citizen all at the same time and they aren’t a citizen by then, then it is probably just too difficult to become a citizen. We desperately need a better immigration system because it will prevent the deportation of undocumented immigrants who contribute to our American society by eliminating the need for the deportation instead. The system may be broken, but it is not because of deportation.