It really should be the very first words to be put on the blackboard on the first day of Law School. Then of course I would love to see my personal moto tatooed on the back of the graduating classes hands, “NoMoreNoloContendere” Defend Em All & That’s That.

Philosophers can ponder “justice”. Lawyers are the mechanics who try to make the system of “justice” work. Justice in the first sentence is a concept. In the second sentence, it’s just a nice word that appeals to people and makes them feel better about a less-than-perfect system. From the systemic perspective, there is no, and can be no, “justice” since each of us applies an entirely different measure. Justice to the victim and justice to the defendant rarely, if ever, align. That we pretend that there is some objective notion of justice is foolish.

For someone like Ryan, a member of that group on the defense side of the equation with sensibilities similar to those of criminal defense lawyers, the elevation of conceptual justice to a place where it should be coextensive with law is where the two groups part ways. Ryan is involved with the Innocence Project of Florida. Criminal defense lawyers are part of the Innocence and Guilty Project of Wherever they Happen to Be. We are not concerned solely with seeking Justice for innocent people. We defend the innocent and guilty alike.

So, if there is such a thing as justice, that would make us the champions of injustice. We don’t promote this, because it would make us even more hated than we are now, but it’s where criminal defense lawyers and those who think like Ryan part company.

If there is a fault to Mark’s post, it’s that he speaks an unpleasant truth, a truth that even our friends don’t like to hear.

Astrologers, by contrast, practice their art in the hopes of doing something that is, if not impossible, then at least far beyond the science of the day. (As do lawyers who think the criminal justice system actually produces justice, except by accident. I hate to have to explain the metaphor, but I’ve discovered that blogging with open comments, and trying to anticipate all of the ways that commenters can misunderstand so that I am not pecked to death by ducks, is writing for the least common denominator.)

Either that or they are perpetrating a fraud on suckers.

There are people (practitioners and suckers both) who earnestly believe that astrology leads to its intended end. It generally doesn’t or can’t be proven to.

Sometimes, however, astrologers, by sheer coincidence, get it right.

Maybe the criminal justice system should come with a label: “for entertainment purposes only.”

Thus, while we do not think much about “justice,” as a people, we often think about injustice, but only when it falls upon our own backs. When we inflict it, we tend to do so cavalierly.

Justice, indeed, is a hard topic to explain, again paraphrasing Bierce, as naturalists have yet to find an intact specimen to examine. INjustice, however, is much easier to define, as we find intact speciments of that daily. The best definition of justice I can find, then, is the opposite of injustice — and injustice tends to strike us viscerally.

But then poor Ryan comes in and actually attempts to fashion a more accurate statement out of your not-so bon mot, and you, for lack of a more refined description, jump his shit. Great job, Mark! Congrats on pointing out the flaws in his efforts while not acknowledging the inherent ridiculousness of the original assertion. I’m sure it makes him feel better for posting that you “excercised considerably (sic?) restraint.” Get off your high horse — oh, wait, as we’ve already established, that horse is dead! How about finding another and riding it with a bit more humility?

Nobody said that politicians always act in ways they believe will get them elected.

I do doubt that we deserve to kill them.

Add all that together, and I reject the death penalty absolutely.