I have travelled quite a bit, and I don’t pretend to generalise over all judicial systems around the world, but I have seen a worrying tendency, it seems that the different judicial systems have a biased position over justice. And that what we expect to be a just system, isn’t quite so. In many areas we see examples of this tendency.
Let us take the case of tax evasion. It is calculated that tax evasion represents 5% of the global economy, and below you have a graph on the amount of dollars lost by tax evasion.
Why aren’t judicial systems pursuing this sort of activity that lost an estimated 11,148,970 million dollars in 2010? The easy answer is that they don’t have the tools and laws necessary to carry out this work, but they do. There is no political wish within the hierarchy of justice to do anything about it. And behind this, there is no will from the political sphere to implement laws and provision the judicial system with the capacity to pursue such actors.
Let us take the case of corporate crime versus street crime. By corporate crime, I don’t mean large crime organisations that have corporate covers, but the crime also known as white-collar crime. I.e. people using their position in a business (and I would add public office) for illegal personal or corporate gain. Of course here we cannot include a bank manager telling someone who they know can’t afford a loan or mortgage to take one, because it is not typified as a crime but probably it should be. Examples of price rigging inside oligarchies to insure profits for all is an example, like the recent case of TV makers in the EU, which recieved a hefty fine (so settled). Stock manipulation like the Broadcom case (dismissed), the misselling of pensions in the UK, etc.. And for street crime I refer to getting your purse or wallet stolen. What are the comparative sentences?
Well, as Joseph T. Wells put it in an article in 2008: “A thug with a gun will typically net less than $5,000 in a robbery and will serve at least five years’ hard time. But according to the 2004 report, the average fraud is in excess of $100,000. And not surprisingly, the punishment is usually less than five years.” Which leads us to the expression “if you want to rob a bank, found one”. You could argue that people in a higher social class can hire better lawyers, and they do, but what is unquestionable is that the same system punishes different people in different ways. Here the impartiality of the system is clearly questionable. Someone would argue that someone stealing my purse should be more punishable because it affects me directly than robbing a company, but that is this persons perception, since st
Let us look at pardoning. This is the most perverse system there is. With some exceptions, it is up to the president of the state to dictate who can be pardoned and who not. With examples like Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon, the suspicious pardoning in his last days of office a drug-lord by George W. Bush. In other countries policemen, military, political friends, businessmen, etc.. get constantly pardoned from their crimes. This is the most absolute blatant proof of the dependency of the judicial system on the political system and an asynchronism from the monarchic period where kings were equivalent to gods on earth. The Canadian system has a federal agency that grants pardons, but the “clemency” loop-hole still exists.
Let us look at repatriation of nationals in foreign prisons. When does a government decide to take action and repatriate a national convict from a foreign country? Legal matters on this a clear. Agreements exist between countries on repatriation, considering the type, gravity and length of a crime/sentence. However, “special” arrangement are taken for “special” people. We recently have the case of John McAfee, that without a trial, was sent back to the US, after being suspected of murder in Belize. However, do you think a Belize national would receive similar treatment? So everybody has the same rights but some, who have loopholes in legislation.
Summarizing, the judicial system is not impartial, it’s not independent, favours people with money and contacts, and lacks any credibility in actually applying justice.