Supremely Dysfunctional: A Look Into Our Modern Day Justice System

In 2015, a Tumblr controversy nicknamed “dress-gate” began when a Tumblr user posted a picture of a dress, asking the internet to help her decide on the true color of said dress. The internet answered and the picture went viral when it seemed no one could agree on the colors of the dress and interestingly enough, no one could even remotely see the other side’s colors in the picture. It’s as if people were viewing two completely different images. That story leads me to a seemingly unrelated but extremely important question. What is justice?

Although deep down every human being claims to want justice, everyone has their own perspective of the justice that they strive to reach and long to see fulfilled. And although we would hope for this high ideology to be easily agreed upon and reachable, the truth is that so often, our ideas of justice have a great deal to do with our own personal experiences and opinions. So how does a society achieve such a lofty standard when we see just how intensely two sides can disagree on whether a dress is black and blue or white and gold? Or, more importantly, whether a man is innocent or guilty? 

Keep in mind the age old saying “There are two sides to every story.” Assistant Professor Dr. Anna King’s article Just Mercy Through Cultural and Convict Criminology, published in the Journal of Criminal Psychology, explores cultural criminology. Dr. King uses the example of how different two photos of the same object can look when taken by two different people. In other words, two different perspectives. 

How easy it is to convince ourselves the evidence agrees with our side after we’ve immediately formed an opinion. “For social researchers, a point of view inevitably shapes the nature of the processes employed and the conclusions reached (Becker, 1967). Though less often acknowledged, and rarely made explicit, the emotional and moral stances researchers find themselves assuming toward their subjects (e.g. Jewkes, 2011; Sparks, 2001) that play a potent role in the creation of images of crime and criminals.” (King 81) Now that’s a lot to unpack but she makes her point explicitly. Criminology is inherently based on perspective. 

The Supreme Court Justices were intended to be appointed not to make the law but to ensure it is carried out. Unfortunately, today we see how carefully judges are chosen to ensure they are not “ruling from the bench.” There is a reason political parties go up in arms over which president is able to choose the next judge because regardless of what they are elected to do, opinion and bias will always shape an individual's perspective. While the intent behind the Supreme Court was pure, humans are not. Just as some Tumblr users saw black and blue and others saw white and gold, a Supreme Court justice, or any judge for that matter, will always interpret the law based on their personal bias. 

As Dr. King continues, “Ultimately, both the product and process of conducting empirical research are part of the same social world that creates images of crime and criminals that loop ‘between the mass media, criminal subcultures, and crime control agencies’ (Ferrell, 2007, p. 3) too often easily lending themselves to the creation of false realities that quickly translate into intractable criminal justice policy.” (King 81)

While it may seem negative, my main take away is this: No one is perfect (neither the criminals or the judges.) But the beauty in the creation of the Supreme Court is that is meant to be close to perfect. It was meant to uphold precedent and set precedent for the future. It was meant to rely on what we know from the past with real, hard logic and evidence. It is also meant to keep the rest of the government in check by serving those who believe they have been wronged. When I read cases that have been unanimously decided or have bipartisan support, it makes me believe that there is at least one branch of our government that tries to do what is right, no matter their own thoughts. True justice is nothing more than revealing the truth and being willing to act on it. The Supreme Court's power enables some to act and some to be set free.