Chapter Nine: MISTAKES HAPPEN
The Hate Crimes Initiative helps quantify who deserves preferential legal treatment and under what circumstances. It provides a structure for a sliding scale of justice, based on skin tone. It also shows a path for adjustments to be made for factors such as gender and wealth. The natural arbiter of these issues of fairness would be the Democrat Party.
But what if the fairness of the system breaks down as a result of subsequent events? What if new evidence is brought to bear? What happens then?
Maybe you’ve read in the newspaper of the person who was caught up in a crime spree, but really didn’t want to see anyone badly hurt or killed? How about the individual who makes a good-faith commitment to a cause and then finds that the commitment is too great a burden to bear? These situations make headlines, and the theme is typically something about an uncaring system trapping a victimized individual in a situation of incredible suffering. But there is hope! The Democratic Party has a solution.
THE PREFERENCES TRIBUNAL
There are three areas where the Democratic Party would provide preferential treatment: legal jeopardy, economic jeopardy, and commitment problems. Here we truly have something for everyone.
Let’s take a case where an individual is on Death Row for committing multiple murders. As fate would have it, the person becomes adept at writing children’s books, and actually contributes to society in a positive way. The time comes when his execution date is near, and the Preferences Tribunal is asked to show clemency.
The power of the Tribunal is that it does not have to consider the victim’s side of the issue. Only the individual requesting preferential treatment is analyzed, and only in terms of a single issue: “Is the individual deserving?”
This simplifies things quite a bit. When only one side of the assailant/victim incident is considered, the problems are immediately cut in half. Also, when considering the question of whether or not a person is deserving of Democratic Party charity, there are only feelings involved. The Preferences Tribunal looks at the inner feelings of the individual and decides if he or she is “deserving”.
Think of all the cases where this applies with people in legal jeopardy. In Colorado, we had a case where an individual kept mum about the dangers posed by a cohort on the run, and a policeman ended up being killed. Even though the person was not the one who actually pulled the trigger, she ended up doing jail time as a result of her behavior. If this case were brought before the Tribunal, the judges would not need to consider her behavior in reaching their decision. Rather, if she is judged to be deserving, the charity of the Tribunal would be granted. The powers of the Tribunal would be similar to those of the President of the United States in granting Presidential Pardons.
What about the area of economic charity? I’ll bet several instances come to mind. How about the individual who declares bankruptcy, and feels the consequences are too strict? Maybe the person who has fallen on hard times because of a medical emergency that was not covered by insurance? Each day, the news has candidates for the Preferences Tribunal. The Democratic Party could use funds from its Excess Wealth and Income Tax to cover the costs of making life easier for these disadvantaged individuals.
The Preferences Tribunal could also do work in the area where an individual makes a commitment of one type or another, and then feels the need to break that commitment. The Tribunal has to be careful not to take up trivial cases here. A typical example is the individual who chooses to serve his or her country by joining the armed forces, but then finds it immoral, illegal, or unjust to support the mission of the armed services. The Preferences Tribunal could arrange for the individual to be released from his or her commitment, but it would have to be careful of the message it sends in this regard. The Tribunal would have to emphasize that it does not look at the issue from the perspective of the entity that received the commitment from the individual. Rather, it evaluates simply the issue of whether or not the individual is deserving of charity. The offended institution or the victim of the individual’s failed commitment is not addressed.
Who would make up the membership of the Tribunal? While the Democratic Party would run the Tribunal, its membership doesn’t have to come from within the Party. Rather, what is needed from each member is an exquisite sense of fairness. One candidate that comes to mind from recent history is former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She has retired from the Supreme Court, but her ability to render decisions that show a relativistic sense of justice based on changing social circumstances make her a logical candidate for the Preferences Tribunal.
The mission of the Preferences Tribunal is to Right our Wrongs and create a more compassionate society. It’s interesting to note that when you look at the Preferences Tribunal and its quest for helping those individuals deserving of charity, you almost get a religious feel to the mission. Yes, we’ve got charity…redemption…deliverance. Does it almost seem as though religion is in the air?