Adjudication or Vigilante Justice?

 Adjudication or Vigilante Justice?

 

Adjudication in legal context refers to:

·         The formal giving of a judgment or decision by a judge in a court of law.

·         The process of settling a legal case or claim through the court or justice system.

·         Resolving a dispute or deciding a case.

·         Reviewing evidence and argumentation to determine rights and obligations between parties.

 

It bothers me when someone is falsely accused of some act that never took place and the burden of proof is on the person accused. At the same time, when the act is publicly apparent, judicial manipulation of “intent” hardly meets the criteria of justice. The attack and resultant injury upon two elderly people in Los Angels, California, has placed the idea of “intent” as a definable injustice because no blame could possibly be found in the elderly couple; whereas the attack could not have been justified or otherwise excused, a homeless person’s attack upon the couple was deemed only a misdemeanor. Insane!

 

When students falsely accuse a teacher; when a young man is falsely accused by a couple of young women (not children); when a woman is falsely accused of striking her husband first—these situations need to be very closely considered. People lie. But a video of an assault is pretty difficult to fake—or it was before AI.

 

Even if a person has the means to hire a lawyer when falsely accused, sometimes it seems totally asinine for a woman to be jailed when she has obviously been brutally attacked. When a young man cannot prove that he did not have sex with young women, how does he prove he has NOT done something? When an elderly couple have obviously NOT instigated violence against someone, and the resultant injuries lead to the death of one partner, how is justice served if the attacker is released without being held accountable?

 

Yesterday, the discussion of whether or not a person should be able to retain one’s 2^nd amendment rights when someone files a restraining order against that person only began to touch some of the injustice of how lies can be used as a weapon against another person. If my neighbor decides that my chickens flying outside the fence makes me a danger to them and their children, they could file a restraining order against me. My guns would be forfeit under the current laws. Nevermind what MY intent might be; the “danger” would be their interpretation of how my hens are restrained! Yes, this is a silly example, but sometimes our laws are just as stupid as pretending that pterodactyls still attack mammals.

 

In the Old West, men felt that justice was too slow and too likely to be prejudiced for the sake of richer people. The vigilante system of justice kept some folks honest. No doubt, it had plenty of injustice in its own corner of the court. But such justice as it was, came swift and sure. Parents had to carefully consider what their children were blaming on the teachers; women had to show signs of rape or attack for men to be punished; and women who were beaten had the opportunity to accuse their attacker. An older couple attacked in the past was an immediate situation for accountability. If their children were not there to help them, their neighbors took care of the problem. Maybe we don’t want to see vigilante justice repeated at this time in our history, but we DO want to see some kind of justice for those who suffer false accusations or for those obviously attacked!

 

We know that God won’t allow lies to fester and erupt in the future; we know that true justice will be seen forevermore among men when His court is open to the cries of the innocent. May the day of true justice appear soon!

 

Rest well, my friends. You are loved.