Justice, Social Justice, and high-profile outrage (op-ed)
At demonstrations
there’s always a protester with a sign that says: No Justice, No Peace, but
what if there was another protester with a sign that said: No Social Justice,
No Peace. A curious mind might ask
what’s the difference? The outrage in
two different cities over the results of two different high-profile cases can add
some clarity.
Chicago’s Police Superintendent and Mayor were livid.
The Police Superintendent stated he didn’t think justice was served and if anyone accused him of anything that damaged his reputation, he would want his day in court to clear his name to the American people. The Mayor said it was a whitewash, more specifically, a secret deal to circumvent justice.
When asked by reporters to speculate why the prosecution brokered this type of deal both the Police Superintendent and the Mayor remained baffled. The Washington Post reported, “A prosecutor’s job is not to seek the most serious conviction or severe penalty. It’s to do justice … They dismissed Smollett’s case in exchange for his completion of several conditions - a prosecutorial tool known as an alternative to prosecution.”
Of course, Smollett supporters were pleased with the outcome, but the Police Superintendent and the Mayor were outraged, because the outcome wasn’t determined by a trial.
Pittsburgh
By now we all heard a black teenager, Antwon Rose, was fatally shot by a white police officer, while he fled a vehicle that was pulled over because the vehicle was involved in a drive-by shooting that wounded a 22-year old man minutes earlier. We also heard Rose was unarmed, but they found weapons in the vehicle, and Rose’s back was turned.
This happened last year.
Here the public wasn’t sympathetic to the “high-risk situation” the white police officer encountered. The public was morally outraged due to their belief that it’s wrong to shoot someone in the back.
The district attorney said, “You don’t shoot someone in the back if they are not a threat to you.”, and charged the white police officer with criminal homicide. Now, remember, the Washington Post said, “A prosecutor’s job is not to seek the most serious conviction or severe penalty. It’s to do justice.” But if the district attorney was morally outraged along with the public and sought the most severe penalty would the district attorney be seeking justice or social justice?
A few weeks ago, the white police officer was tried and the jury found him not guilty of any criminality.
Of course, those that believe it’s wrong to shoot an unarmed person in the back, regardless of the victim’s prior activities, and regardless of the risk to the officer, were outraged. For them, justice wasn’t served, because the jury didn’t convict the white police officer for his wrong doing.
In this tale of two cities, both defendants “got off”, but they shouldn’t have according to two different parties who were outraged for two different reasons.
The difference is the distinction between justice and social justice.
In Chicago, the police chief and the Mayor believed justice wasn’t served, because the trial process was avoided, but in Pittsburgh activists believed social justice wasn’t served, because the jury rendered the wrong verdict.
So, Chicago’s protest sign should say: No Process, No Peace, and Pittsburgh’s protest sign should say: No Proper Outcome, No peace.
Chicago
By now we all heard the news that
Jussie Smollett, a black/gay celebrity, was the alleged victim of a
racial/homophobic assault. Smollett
claimed he was attacked by white Trump supporters.
The entire nation was sympathetic,
even the President said the incident was awful.
But after an investigation, the
Chicago Police Department claimed the Smollett hate crime was a hoax, more
specifically, a publicity stunt to advance Smollett’s celebrity career. A grand jury indicted Smollett with 16 felony
counts for filing a false hate crime report.
Smollett said he was innocent.
Suddenly all sympathy for Smollett
turned into disappointment. Then there
was another shocking turn of events. The
Smollett case was dropped.
Chicago’s Police Superintendent and Mayor were livid.
The Police Superintendent stated he didn’t think justice was served and if anyone accused him of anything that damaged his reputation, he would want his day in court to clear his name to the American people. The Mayor said it was a whitewash, more specifically, a secret deal to circumvent justice.
When asked by reporters to speculate why the prosecution brokered this type of deal both the Police Superintendent and the Mayor remained baffled. The Washington Post reported, “A prosecutor’s job is not to seek the most serious conviction or severe penalty. It’s to do justice … They dismissed Smollett’s case in exchange for his completion of several conditions - a prosecutorial tool known as an alternative to prosecution.”
Of course, Smollett supporters were pleased with the outcome, but the Police Superintendent and the Mayor were outraged, because the outcome wasn’t determined by a trial.
Pittsburgh
By now we all heard a black teenager, Antwon Rose, was fatally shot by a white police officer, while he fled a vehicle that was pulled over because the vehicle was involved in a drive-by shooting that wounded a 22-year old man minutes earlier. We also heard Rose was unarmed, but they found weapons in the vehicle, and Rose’s back was turned.
This happened last year.
Here the public wasn’t sympathetic to the “high-risk situation” the white police officer encountered. The public was morally outraged due to their belief that it’s wrong to shoot someone in the back.
The district attorney said, “You don’t shoot someone in the back if they are not a threat to you.”, and charged the white police officer with criminal homicide. Now, remember, the Washington Post said, “A prosecutor’s job is not to seek the most serious conviction or severe penalty. It’s to do justice.” But if the district attorney was morally outraged along with the public and sought the most severe penalty would the district attorney be seeking justice or social justice?
A few weeks ago, the white police officer was tried and the jury found him not guilty of any criminality.
Of course, those that believe it’s wrong to shoot an unarmed person in the back, regardless of the victim’s prior activities, and regardless of the risk to the officer, were outraged. For them, justice wasn’t served, because the jury didn’t convict the white police officer for his wrong doing.
In this tale of two cities, both defendants “got off”, but they shouldn’t have according to two different parties who were outraged for two different reasons.
The difference is the distinction between justice and social justice.
In Chicago, the police chief and the Mayor believed justice wasn’t served, because the trial process was avoided, but in Pittsburgh activists believed social justice wasn’t served, because the jury rendered the wrong verdict.
So, Chicago’s protest sign should say: No Process, No Peace, and Pittsburgh’s protest sign should say: No Proper Outcome, No peace.
First published in the
New Pittsburgh Courier 4/3/19
Comments
Post a Comment