“THE system of justice that applies to you is different than the one that applies to the people who are influential.”

Maurice H. Nadjari, then Special State Prosecutor to investigate the criminal justice system of New York city, made that statement in an interview last summer. When asked: “Do you think there’s a double standard in this society; one for the nobles and another for the peasants?” Nadjari replied:

“I think that certainly in our system of justice, there is. There’s been a duality of justice. One system of justice for the politically weighted, and another one for you and me.”

Do those remarks seem to describe your area too? Probably so, for persons everywhere experience galling injustice. Aside from what you personally may have experienced, you likely have heard of many examples of injustice.

For instance, do you know of cases in which a prominent lawmaker, judge or politician accepted bribes, peddled his influence or broke the law to enrich himself or advance his career? Yet did he receive just punishment? Or was his punishment much lighter than a person from a minority group might expect for a comparable crime? To bring it ‘closer to home’: If it were revealed that an influential person in your community defrauded the government of, say $50,000, do you think that his punishment would be equal to that given to one of your workmates or neighbors if he stole as much money?

The fact is that in many places the “system of justice” is not really just. A national council on crime reported:

“Those caught up in the system are overwhelmingly the poor, the lower class, members of minority groups, immigrants, foreigners, persons of low intelligence and others who are in some way at a disadvantage. Those who have a good chance of escaping the system are the affluent criminals, corporate criminals, white-collar criminals, professional criminals, organized criminals and intelligent criminals.”

We can put some flesh on the bones of this generalization. According to one study, ‘racketeers were found five times less likely to be convicted of a crime than others.’ Another study revealed “that prominent white-collar defendants average about one year [in prison] for every $10 million they steal. . . . In contrast, bank robbers who got away with a few thousand dollars averaged 11-year sentences, five times longer in [prison] than bank embezzlers who got away with millions.”

That was in the United States. But if you live in another country, do you think that the situation is much different there?

Of course, most of us may figure that this particular type of injustice will not directly involve us, for who of us plans to rob a bank or embezzle millions? Still, injustices may be our lot in other ways.

As an illustration, you may have tried to get some legal matter settled. Perhaps it was obtaining certain travel or family documents or a permit to make alterations on a building. You met all the legal requirements, such as fulfilling the building code. But did you get fair, just treatment? Or, where you are, does justice in such matters depend on “who you know”?

Whatever the sort and extent of the injustice, all of us have experienced too much of it. As a result, probably we have all wondered, “Will injustice ever end?”

HELP WITH THE PROBLEM

Those who have tried to solve some of the more glaring public injustices have learned that this is easier wished for than done. Among solutions that you may hear from the man on the street are:

‘Get the leaders to be honest and just; then the rest of the people will be just.’ ‘Make sure the courts enforce equal sentences for all, not letting the gangsters or politicians get off easy.’ ‘See to it that the poor have adequate legal help so that they get justice.’ ‘Increase the punishments for accepting bribes so that those in authority will not be tempted to pervert justice.’

Such views, however, overlook some vital points regarding injustice that are brought into focus in a Bible account found in Luke chapter 18. Our briefly considering that account will give us some historical perspective on the problem of injustice and will present angles of the matter that are often ignored.

The account is an illustration that Jesus gave based on things with which his listeners were familiar. Jesus said:

“In a certain city there was a certain judge that had no fear of God and had no respect for man. But there was a widow in that city and she kept going to him, saying, ‘See that I get justice from my adversary at law.’ Well, for a while he was unwilling, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Although I do not fear God or respect a man, at any rate, because of this widow’s continually making me trouble, I will see that she gets justice, so that she does not keep coming and pummeling me to a finish.’”

Then Jesus counseled:

“Hear what the judge, although unrighteous, said! Certainly, then, shall not God cause justice to be done for his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night, even though he is long-suffering toward them? I tell you, He will cause justice to be done to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on the earth?”​—Luke 18:2-8.

Jesus gave this illustration to stress the need to persevere in prayer. (Luke 18:1) But we can also learn about justice from it.

First, the parable should have a balancing effect upon us. Why? Because it indicates that even nineteen hundred years ago it often was difficult to get justice from a person in authority, such as a magistrate appointed by the Romans. Yes, injustice is an age-old problem. Who can say how many different human governments and reform movements have tried to end injustice? Yet it is still with us. Recognizing this historical fact can be a safeguard for us. How so? It can protect us from getting quickly swept up in another human effort of some sort to change the situation, an effort probably not much different from what has been tried before.​—Prov. 24:21.

WHO would deny that “justice for all” is a fine principle? But, being realistic, we know that this is not the case yet.

Over the centuries sincere men and women have struggled to decrease injustice and increase justice. Reform movements have altered political structures. Legal procedures and court systems have been revised and reorganized. Still, injustice remains!

This leads persons to conclude that “justice for all” will never be; some even become cynical or feel concerned about injustice only when it touches them. However, there is reason for optimism. Something can and will be done to bring about justice for all. But how and when? We can better appreciate the answers by considering some causes of injustice and obstacles to justice. Also, we will note how complex the problem of obtaining full justice is.

START AT THE TOP

Noted Jurist Marvin E. Frankel pointed out:

“ . . . we cannot ignore the extent to which the behavior of community leaders determines the attitudes of the people toward law and order. We live in an era during which the candor and the integrity of our highest officials​—not excluding judges, but not mainly judges—​have been drawn into acute question.”

Clearly, corruption among government and law-enforcement leaders is a major obstacle to full justice. How can justice for all ever be achieved as long as those empowered to enforce justice are open to bribes or show favoritism toward persons of influence? Long ago the Bible correctly stated: “When anyone wicked bears rule, the people sigh. By justice a king makes a land keep standing, but a man out for bribes tears it down.”​—Prov. 29:2, 4.

If, then, justice for all is to become a reality, there must be honest, just leadership.

ONE LAW FOR ALL

Another obstacle to justice is the fact that, today, how much justice you get may involve who you are or how much you have.

In some places “justice” can depend on a person’s ability to hire expensive lawyers. True, sometimes the court supplies able lawyers to defend those who cannot afford such. But these lawyers are often overworked or are not available for all types of cases. Consequently, a gangster or dishonest businessman who can pay for an elaborate, technical defense may “buy” what passes for justice.

An American lawyer who headed a 175-man legal team defending one person made this revealing observation:

“The first thing you [have] to realize is that the quality of justice in this country is directly related to the pocketbook. . . . It’s poor people who go to jail because poor people cannot get justice in this judicial system. My first week of practicing law, I went over to court to watch a trial, and I saw four poor people get severe sentences for gambling. Then I went to a [lawyers’] association meeting, and they’re all sitting around with [gambling] machines.”

Even if convicted, punishment may be determined partially by a person’s financial or social standing. In some cases of “white-collar” fraud involving millions of dollars a relatively light sentence is given with the explanation that the criminal has been punished with loss of prestige. Yet a newspaper editorialized:

“Any prominent defendant can plausibly argue that public exposure and contempt are sufficient retribution. By that standard, it is only the least favored members of society who would receive the highest penalties, since they cannot claim loss of status. ‘Equal justice’ is more easily proclaimed than practiced.”

Hence, if justice for all is ever to be obtained, there will have to be one law for all persons no matter what their position or wealth. The Bible called attention to this important principle, for the Hebrew law said: “One judicial decision should hold good for you. The alien resident should prove to be the same as the native, because I am Jehovah your God.”​—Lev. 24:22; 19:34; Num. 9:14; 15:16.

FAIR SENTENCES

Even if the law is clear and it applies to all, rendering just sentences can still be a problem.

The New York Post of May 5, 1976, reported:

“Attorney General Levi criticized the nation’s system of sentencing criminals as slow, uncertain and unfair, and said it ‘has the attributes of a lottery.’ . . . In one federal judicial district, 71 per cent of all convicted defendants go to prison while in another district only 16 per cent are imprisoned if convicted of similar charges, he noted.”

How to deal with such disparity is a question. You may have heard the suggestion that there should be a set mandatory sentence for each crime. For example, anyone who steals a car gets a certain fine or length of imprisonment; the person who commits arson must serve a fixed number of years in confinement; and so forth. While such a judicial system might sound simple and fair, would it really be just? For example, should the first-time offender who is sincerely repentant receive the same sentence as a brazen criminal?

At a conference of criminologists and judges in Berlin, Dr. Richard Sturm of West Germany’s Ministry of Justice described one attempt to deal with the matter. It involved “social prognosis,” that is, analyzing a defendant’s life circumstances and past record, then sentencing him accordingly. But Dr. W. Buikhuisen of the Netherlands questioned whether this might not “penalize some offenders twice.” He reasoned that if they “already had suffered from disadvantaged circumstances, they were likely to be considered poor risks and given longer sentences.”

The problem’s perplexity underscores that if there is to be justice for all, wise and fair judges are needed. The Biblical law system given to the Israelites stressed this fact. In it God stipulated: “You are not to pervert the judicial decision of your poor man in his controversy. You are to keep far from a false word. . . . You are not to accept a bribe, for the bribe blinds clear-sighted men.” (Ex. 23:6-8) God further said: “You people must not do injustice in the judgment. You must not treat the lowly with partiality, and you must not prefer the person of a great one. With justice you should judge your associate.”​—Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:15-17.

What would help to keep those Hebrew judges from becoming unjust? Reverential fear of God. They were told: “It is not for man that you judge but it is for Jehovah; and he is with you in the matter of judgment. And now let the dread of Jehovah come to be upon you. Be careful and act, for with Jehovah our God there is no unrighteousness or partiality or taking of a bribe.”​—2 Chron. 19:6, 7.

NEW APPROACHES TO JUSTICE?

Over the years there have been many changes in the systems of justice in various lands. These changes often were made in accord with some new theory or philosophy regarding justice.

For instance, over the last century much attention has been given to efforts to rehabilitate criminals, striving to make social adjustments in them rather than primarily punishing them. This philosophy has also tended to encourage more leniency in sentencing.

While certainly commendable in theory, how has this approach worked out? Alan Dershowitz, professor of law and coordinator of a task force on criminal sentencing, said:

“Rehabilitation simply has not worked. A recent survey of more than 200 studies of rehabilitation came to the discouraging conclusion that we have ‘very little reason’ to believe that recidivism [recurrent relapse into crime] can be reduced by any of the currently employed rehabilitation techniques.”

All too often the liberal, “humane” approach has resulted in returning to the streets persons who are habitual criminals. In Thinking About Crime James Q. Wilson, professor of government at Harvard, concluded: “Wicked people exist. Nothing avails except to set them apart from innocent people. . . . We have trifled with the wicked, made sport of the innocent and encouraged the calculators. Justice suffers, and so do we all.” How true, for many persons have now lost hope that humans will ever see justice for all.