Excellent analysis. An old aphorism seems to apply here. We are coming to a point of having a “legal system” not a “justice system.”
Well, the U.S. rule of law does tend towards being a legal system over a justice system. That’s not necessarily bad. A legal system is based on written laws, predictability and equality. A justice system can depend on whose definition of justice rules. The vast majority of people will contend that notions of justice govern their acts on anything from interpreting contracts to murder to despotism. Hitler believed in “justice” for the Germanic peoples. Mao believed he was being “just”. The Crusaders believed they were being just. What the U.S. legal system does is establish that laws be written plainly enough that reasonably intelligent people can determine whether or not they wish to risk violating those laws. Nearly every law will be considered just by some, unjust by others, but the U.S. system concerns itself less with justice and more with fair notice and equal application.
Some legal systems in the world do concern themselves with “justice” overall. The idea is that the justice system exists to search for “truth” or “justice” in each individual case. It is a laudable goal but practically not very good. It basically requires the defense attorney to become a prosecuting attorney if he or she believes the client is guilty and it doesn’t require a confession by the client to allow that determination. In both criminal and civil cases, the notion of precedent is tossed out the window. And precedent is a vital component of our ability to predict whether or not our future acts may be violations of the law. I will be the first one to say our legal system is far from perfect. It won’t be perfect until we have the ability to read thoughts and determine truth in an absolutely infallible manner. In the meantime, our “legal system” is the worst in the world—except for all the others. ;o)