Blog #226--Exception to Non-Judgment Principle
I have written extensively about how important non-judgment is for our spiritual growth, both in my book “It’s a Secret, So Pass It On: a Toolbox For Life” and subsequent blog articles. I have also reminded readers that in this world, everything has an exception. There is one primary exception to the non-judgment rule, but it appears many people misunderstand its proper application.
In a civil society, laws and regulations are required to protect everyone’s survival needs. Punishments for those abusing these laws and regulations help insure compliance. We have a legal system offering alleged criminals their day in court to prove their innocence, hoping only the guilty are punished, and the punishments fit the crimes they commit. In practice, not all innocent people are set free, and not all guilty people are punished. Some punishments do not fit the crimes, and sometimes people take the law into their own hands.
We are not always willing to give people a fair hearing. Public lynching, clandestine murders, targeted assassinations and the like have all been used to eliminate those assumed guilty without a fair trial to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Judgment is passed by those unqualified to make such a decision.
Hate, anger, revenge and politics dominate thinking at times, leading some to take matters into their own hands. When we murder someone we presume is guilty without sufficient proof, we are behaving just like the guilty parties. That is not an accurate exception to the spiritual principle of non-judgment.
Laws have evolved over time, but the general principle of providing fair hearings has been around for many centuries. Every accused has a right to a fair trial and to face his or her accuser in a public setting. Each must be considered innocent until proven guilty. Accurate information must be presented under oath for a judge and, if requested, a jury of peers. The judge and members of the jury are required to be fair and impartial and not pre-judge.
There are other important rules as well, but some have worked diligently to reduce or eliminate them, claiming they are too partial to the defendant because a few guilty people are freed on a technicality. It is true some guilty people are freed, but they are more likely to be white collar criminals who can afford high-priced attorneys and perhaps also have connections with the presiding judge. Corruption is always possible with some judges, especially those in place due to political appointments rather than a public vote. And an occasional juror can be bought off or scared into resisting the will of the other jurors, guaranteeing a mistrial.
Obviously, our legal system does not always work perfectly, but it is the best we have devised. Improvements can be made, but a worsening can also occur. In recent years, it appears we have experienced more of the latter than the former. Ever since the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963, when Lee Harvey Oswald was killed before he could go to trial, there have been doubts about the veracity of our criminal system. It was assumed Oswald was a lone assassin, but he never had a chance to testify on his own behalf. Given his likely secret agent background, such testimony might have led the court system down a different path than to conclude he planned and carried out the murder alone.
In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, while still not benefitting from all the facts in the case, in part due to the highly unusual number of eye witnesses who had died under mysterious circumstances, concluded the assassination was likely the result of a conspiracy. The committee was not permitted to look beyond that effort, but many people wonder whether there was a coup in 1963 that has led the U.S. government down a darker path in the years since. That doubt continues today because of the lack of a complete legal analysis of events leading up to and following the assassination. A lot of people would rest easier, one way or the other, if they could know the names and motives of the conspirators.
Since then, fair trials have become less frequent. Some judges let their political bias influence decision-making. Jury tampering has moved from an art to a science. Alleged criminals are frequently assumed guilty from the start. Some of those who have served their jail time and are freed commit more crimes, but many more attempt to live clean lives on the outside. Yet they continue to be judged and treated harshly by their fearful neighbors on the outside.
The tragic events of 2001, when two massive buildings collapsed in their own footprints, killing thousands of people in front of an international television audience, had even less chance to go to trial. Guilty parties were named almost immediately after the event, and an attack on the country where the alleged ringleader supposedly resided was planned. That war and numerous additional wars continue today. Many people were so emotionally imprinted on those events, they have been willing to sacrifice their freedoms to let their governments engage in unsanctioned killings and general destruction, ostensibly to protect their safety.
But the trail of unanswered questions and often contradictory explanations has filled many volumes since. If the government has the proof, a fair trial could still be carried out to put all the facts on the table even though the alleged ringleader is dead (by assassination or kidney failure, depending on which story one believes). That way, doubt could be laid to rest if conclusions support initial reactions, or new investigations could still be carried out to learn more of the truth regarding events that fatal day.
But even when Congress held hearings, their mandate was to exclude any study of who planned and carried out the attack on the buildings. A refusal to have a public hearing on that basic subject gives one the impression there is something to hide, which creates more confusion and suspicion. Congress was not even given all pertinent evidence to examine.
The FBI never put the ringleader on their “Most Wanted” list. What if he was not the one who planned the attack? Then we as a country may be guilty of attacking the wrong country and murdering the wrong person. That is what happens when we ignore the spiritual law of non-attachment. Vengeance and other self-interested motives for doing harm to others is not justice. Neither is an eye-for-an-eye without a fair trial since it rarely stops with an equal reversal and may target the wrong person. No matter how vile the crime, alleged criminals and their crimes should have a right to a fair trial.
There is a difference between justice and non-judgment. Justice attempts to balance the scales between the guilty and aggrieved. But even when crimes have been committed, it is not our place to judge motives for the crime without knowing for sure how we might have behaved if we were the person committing the crime. We can seek justice and still remain spiritual. Right now, we are struggling to judge criminals fairly, let alone to stop judging them. Our spiritual growth is stunted as a result.
http://dreamtime3.wixsite.com/jacktuttlebook
Comments and questions can be directed to dreamtime@insight-books.com.