Does Justice Have A Limit?

AUDIO TRANSMISSION ACTIVE — VOLUME ENABLED

 

In today's day and age, truth is a commodity. Facts are nearly forbidden, and information agents work in the dark to confiscate narratives and testimonies. On the other hand, hardworking individuals across the net attempt to band together to decipher the truth and bring justice to action. However, these individuals often feel exposed, vulnerable, and lacking the proper support structures to succeed in their tasks. When you consider that these individuals are taking on challenges that concern organizations and companies backed by investors and significant resources, one might assume an equally powerful force is willing to challenge and prosecute these organizations for criminal actions. However, as demonstrated time and again, there are few punishments for people in powerful positions that choose evil over good, and seditious behavior among populations can be fueled by this perceived corruption. Therefore, at all times it is in the best interest of all parties involved in litigation to leave access to information available, make the situation public domain, and make the matter a subject of confidence in not only government, but institutions alike in order to maximize the chances of justice being done.

In order to understand the world of litigation and justice, we must take a few steps back, and reach into the void of consciousness that creates a public. How many different authorities can there be in one country that affect each individual living in that territory? How many different loyalties is each person required to have? Whether that be to religion, organizations, family, or any purpose or task that a person may be required or willing to serve.

The reason these questions matter, is because that is how each individual structures their own designation of life's priorities. We focus on the individual, because individuals are the ones getting prosecuted and being sent to prison at the end of the day, not groups.

Let's start with an anecdotal teaching point.

Let's say someone is born into a rough neighborhood, and at a young age begins interacting with criminal individuals. Those interactions shape that person's list of priorities and no matter what happens throughout the course of their life they will always remember that at the end of any decision; whether it be perceived as good or evil, is a human being that has at least run through some kind of decision-making process to arrive where they are. In other words, they assume the individual has power, and they assume that power must be legitimate because power is a commodity that can change quality of life. This example could work for religion, an organization, or a group that actively networks and communicates for an advantageous purpose other than recreation. Over time, these groups may gain some type of influence over that person and possibly scare them into a form of trauma-based mined control. In these cases, justice may be limited by the inability to break through that person's legitimate, and biological system overriding fear of consequence. Specifically, investigators dealing with these types of people may not be able to gather evidence because of their pre-programmed state of mind.

Often times, we find that true justice comes down to the willpower of individuals to both escape or enact justice, a battle which falls into the hands of lawyers, judges, police, and criminals alike. On one side there are no rules, on the other there are laws, rules, truths, and moralities. 

It's a sad reality for a man, the truth is, power lies in the hands of the willing, and those willing to do evil can't be met in places where good men go on their own. They say evil never sleeps, and if things go right, I'd venture to say it won't be able to in the coming years.