The good Lord has given man a brain which enables him not only to remember events, but the sequence in which they occurred. This ability then makes it possible to reflect and try to determine what led to what and, if the result was bad, to try not to repeat that sequence of behavior again.
The common term for this process is that we "learn from out mistakes."
But, history seems to indicate that we're not very successful in avoiding doing the same stupid things over and over. Why?
Some people thinks it's because people are either stupid or inattentive. I'm inclined to think that just maybe unravelling the right sequence of events is harder than we think. Also, sometimes our emotions interfere with making logical connections. We prefer one scenario to another, maybe because it's more consistent with what we expected. In other words, we're prejudiced by our prior experience or information and allow that pre-judgement to color our interpretations.
The current war against Iraq seems to be a good example. People who are inclined to think well of their leaders (whom they helped select) are persuaded by the argument that the invasion was good for the United States and for the people of Iraq, even if the latter don't appreciate it now. People who are inclined to think that the oilmen from Texas, where the fields are running dry, were wanting to exploit the black gold lying under Iraq, are persuaded that the invasion was driven by greed--a desire to have something that belongs to someone else without giving something of equal value in return.
The problem I see is that if both these scenarios are wrong, if the truth remains unknown (as it did, for example, about Vietnam), then it's likely that the same mistakes will be made again. Indeed, if the real reason for the invasion of Iraq is the same as for the effort to conquer Vietnam--i.e. establishing a permanent base of operations for the American military in the Indian Ocean region--then it's likely that the result will be the same, withdrawal without any contracts for cheap oil and no prospect of a democratic government for many decades to come. In addition, if the true intent, to counter or contain the burgeoning power that is China remains unaddressed, it's anybody's guess where we will make the same mistake next.
But, that's not what set me to thinking about prejudice today. My concern is a lot closer to home--the role that prejudice plays in filling up US prisons and jails. Or rather, the common assumptions we derive from experience and friends, not really antagonistic in intent (prejudgements that are neither positive or negative) which keep us from recognizing the true cause of this national scandal. And that's what it is--the number of poor minorities that are being locked up is truly scandalous.
The scandal, however, isn't in the number of mostly young males of modest means who are found guilty and sent to jail and prison. It isn't in the logical conclusion that the society draws from this number--that this population is particularly prone to criminal behavior. And it isn't in the contrary conclusion, formulated by those who identify with the plight of this population, that they are the victims of racist attitudes which target them for arrest, prosecution and incarceration because of an unalterable animus towards them. No, the scandal lies in the fact that if this population had access to even minimally competent legal representation, such as their counterparts in the majority community can afford, they might still get arrested, but they wouldn't be convicted and sent to jail because most law enforcement investigations and reports are so shoddy that they don't stand up court. Any minimally competent attorney can get most charges dismissed, if a prosecutor even decides to go forward, because the evidence as presented is unreliable, incomplete, contradictory or false, or all of the above.
While it is becoming common knowledge that a large number of innocent people have been sent to prison for live, or even put to death, because of incompetent or even criminal acts on the part of law-enforcement agents, that this pattern is pervasive throughout the nation has received little attention. Besides, official negligence benefits from the protection of judicial prejudice in favor of the agents of the state. Law enforcement personnel are presumed to be honest, truthful, dedicated and objective and, though the defendant in an action is presumed to be innocent, that presumption of virtue, this prejudice in favor of the state, is difficult to overcome.
Which, I would argue, is why the elevation of someone like Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Supreme Court is particularly dangerous. His fundamental commitment to the proposition that the state is right, his adherence to the principle of "judicial restraint" in the face of government wrong-doing and negligence would make it almost impossible to right the wrongs that have been done, as the authority of the state has been usurped by people whose respect for the law of the land is virtually nil.
Posted by Hannah at August 19, 2005 09:06 AM