The Grand Illusion
Often, in U.S. culture, Justice is portrayed as a blindfolded female goddess holding a set of scales with two pans to weigh the evidence. Now, of course, I could ask more than a few questions, such as how could she see the results if she’s blindfolded or how does she know the evidence is valid if she can’t see it, but those questions spoil the image and the metaphor.
Yet, in so many ways in the United States, the pursuit of justice can be blind, and it’s certainly biased against those without the resources to fully utilize the skills and tools of law.
The fact is that the majority of criminal charges in U.S. courts are settled through plea bargains, with various studies showing that only two to ten percent (depending on the study) of criminal cases are settled by actual full-scale trials, with evidence and legal examinations, etc. Why are there so few actual trials without a plea bargain? The answer, as in so many areas of U.S. culture, is simply money. Trials cost money and take time, and few criminal defendants have any significant financial assets, and most public defenders are overloaded, underpaid, and less experienced. In that sense, lack of money can blind justice.
But there’s also another blindness in criminal justice, and that blindness, or at least impairment, lies in which cases law enforcement pursues and how effectively they’re pursued. When Brian Thompson, the United Healthcare CEO, was gunned down in New York, a nationwide hunt ensued, and the news has been filled with stories about his death. But 23 others were killed in New York City in December, and none of them received such coverage or such intensive law enforcement efforts – likely not even close. Most of them are statistics to everyone but immediate friends and family.
How many murders go unsolved? Currently, roughly half of all homicides in the U.S. go unsolved, but how many more might be solved if the level of resources focused on finding Brian Thompson’s killer were focused on all murders? Except they can’t be, because local authorities don’t have enough resources, and why justice is so often blind… in the worst way.
Yup. Only the people with power or other perceived importance get crimes against them pursued with a lot of vigor. (Or, occasionally, young and good-looking people, but still from the more privileged parts of the populace.)
Marginalized people, like minorities or the poor, and stigmatized groups, like sex workers and LGBTQ+ individuals, can just about count on their murders being all but ignored.
Unless filmed…maybe.
Then again, that which is seen, justice cannot be blind to. Right?
Whilst who the victim is definitely has an impact on how much public interest/media coverage there is I think the method and motive of the killer also plays a significant part.
In some ways I think the interest in this murder is because the victim did not know his killer but was targeted by him. It bears some resemblance to being the victim of a serial killer who selects their targets but is often unknown to their victims.
The idea that a stranger could be targeting you for murder for reasons you are not even aware of is a pretty scary prospect.
I don’t think you have to be a wealthy elite to feel at least a little bit frightened by the prospect of being murdered by a stranger for perceived wrongdoings.
If Brian Thompson had been killed in a mugging or some other less personally targeted act of violence no doubt there would still be significant attention but I suspect not as much.
That’s true. Assassination is a “sexy” crime as far as murder goes, it gets an inordinate amount of media attention. Then again, you have to be relatively important to be worthy of assassination in the first place.
But yes, I think if he was killed in a car crash or even a hit n run, the story would have been over far quicker. Plane crash is a week or two.
Mind you, the idea that a ceo is now a political target for murder has a chilling effect on the entire peer group, por encourager les autres as it were. I doubt it’ll have any real impact though other than the attacker will get some absurdly punitive sentence and many more people will be starved of healthcare.
CEOs (and their families) have long been the targets of violence. This is nothing new, and common enough that insurance programs specifically tailored for such are available.
There was intense media coverage almost immediately owing to who the victim was. My comment to my spouse at that time was the same as Mr. Modesitt made – lots of victims are out there every day and don’t see any media coverage. So, that was well before much of anything was known about the perpetrator.
If you are wealthy and from this class of citizens, you have more benefits and far less to fear than the average US citizen. There’s almost no downside.
According to Thompson’s wife, the UnitedHealthcare CEO had received death threats relating to medical coverage before his murder.
I love NY. Before the 1990’s there were few cops seen around Central Park and along Broadway. 1990’s and 2000’s saw them visibly present almost 24/7. During the last decade they have disappeared again (although for the next six month apparently the NY night trains will have cops on them). I can tell you, from personal experience in NY, that where I went and how I felt was different around the turn of the century compared to now and in the 1970’s.
Cops cost money and as LEM points out so do lawyers and the US is very much a lawyer friendly nation and that is not because of our belief in “Rule of Law”. Increasing visible law enforcement, specifically in high physical crime areas, would increase the size of “government” as well as increase public funding. Changing the behavior that is expected in a culture is difficult but can be done as in Singapore.
Maybe if we give the Feds more power than the States we can have a nation able to concentrate on what is needed and not dictators as in: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/14/young-people-democracy-dictators-fascism-war-far-right
But can we have Capitalism without the “toxic” culture of corporations such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, Tesla, X, etc.? This would require some “control/restrictions” on financial gains above at least 10% if not the old “standard” of an economical 5% profit. I do not buy the theory that this would reduce/subvert innovation and development.
This could be achieved with increased public service efficiency and not a tremendous increase the size of government. At present the States want help with this and that but are unwilling to give the feds the authority to do what is necessary or even plan for the foreseeable future: in other words they are, like many of their citizens desirous of services, but unwilling to fund them or support there need.
Yes Congress is to blame for some, perhaps most of the problems we have as a nation, because they have their heads in the soil of their representative property and not dealing with the responsibilities for which they were elected, which is to efficiently “run” our nation (to provide the safety of law and order, protecting citizens from each other and from foreign foes).