The Last Will And Testament Of Justice

To whomever it may concern:

My name is Justice. I have been very sick for the last nine months. This past week I mistakenly thought I was going to recover, but I suddenly took a turn for the worse and died. Do not imagine that all is hopeless. I have died before (the Dred Scott decision, for example), but I have always been resurrected. Fortunately, I have many lives. In fact, I died as recently as 1973 and have yet to be fully resuscitated from Roe v. Wade.

Since my demise on Tuesday, I have prepared certain statements for different groups of people which may assist in my revival. [I have the privilege of communicating this way–at least until I’m buried once and for all.] Please consider my words carefully.

TO: ALL MANKINDIf you expect to survive as a society, you must divest yourself of the attitude, TRUTH DOESN’T MATTER, and its corollary, FACTS DON’T MATTER. In an effort to escape being held accountable, you have reduced everything to the realm of opinion. Truth, facts, and evidence no longer matter; the operative factor is how you feel about it. Everything has become a matter of interpretation. The idle speculation of philosophers has now filtered down to the average man with respect to both the Bible and justice.

Mark 16:16, for example, says: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” People, who obviously see the intent of the verse, will begin to argue immediately (sometimes before you’ve offered a word of explanation), “It doesn’t mean that to me. I don’t think a person needs to be baptized.” When it is pointed out that Jesus gave two conditions (faith and baptism) which must be met before salvation is received, many people will affirm, “That’s just your opinion.”

It’s not a matter of opinion; it’s a matter of TRUTH. It’s not a matter of interpreting a difficult passage couched in symbolism; it’s a matter of understanding what the verse says–without being prejudiced by one’s religious training.

Now here, jury, is blood in which the DNA found in the defendant’s car, at his home, etc., matches that of the defendant–he was there. “But that’s just the prosecution’s interpretation of things. Maybe a racist cop planted all that.” Yeah, and maybe you’re paranoid, too. Maybe a UFO siphoned the defendant’s blood while he was asleep and scattered it all over the murder scene and in his car. When Truth, facts, and evidence cease to matter, human life has already been devalued.

TO: THE JURY FOREWOMANI saw you on television. You said that domestic violence had nothing to do with this case and should be tried separately. How can you, a woman, attempt to divorce domestic violence from its ultimate result? Are you aware of how many women who are abused and break free are stalked and murdered? Shame on you for ascribing the evidence of domestic violence (as recorded on tape) as irrelevant.

You said that the race card (which one of the defense team said was not only played but dealt from the bottom of the deck) had no effect on you, nor did the racist cop. Have you deceived yourself? Or are you just trying to sucker everyone else? Ask yourself this question. If the former wife and a friend had conspired to kill the defendant, and their blood was found at the murder scene and in her vehicle, would you have found them innocent of killing a Black man, even if a Black racist cop had testified? A White jury would have done so. How can the public believe race did not figure in, when the evidence was overwhelming and compelling? The first vote you took was 10-2, which indicates that the evidence did not matter to the vast majority of you. And you say that race did not play a part in the quick verdict? Pardon our skepticism.

Our jury system is designed to acquit someone if there is a reasonable doubt. What could possibly have annulled such a great preponderance of evidence? Think long and hard about this Scripture, Jury Forewoman: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Pr. 17:15). You justified the wicked.

TO: MARTIN LUTHER KING”I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character.” How inspiring were your words, Dr. King. Your speech is still famous–because you were right. You helped afflict and prick the national conscience. Far too many Whites were prejudiced against Blacks, and some still are. But many in positions of prominence have helped Blacks achieve the opportunities and equality they should have already had.

But, Dr. King, your dream has not yet been realized. Blacks are still being judged by the color of their skin and not their character–only not in the way you envisioned. At least three trials have occurred in this nation in which it was proven that a Black defendant was guilty of murder. In one case there were eyewitnesses who testified of the crime. But in all three cases the Black defendant was acquitted by a predominantly Black jury–because he was Black. Each man was judged by the color of his skin.

No doubt, such actions would grieve you since it violates the basic principles of the things you fought for. You would have been ashamed of the students at Howard University who exploded out of their chairs, leaping and shouting, when the latest Black man was pronounced, “Not Guilty.” White law students became discouraged; after all, what purpose does law serve, if despite the evidence, the verdict will be based on skin color?

Dr. King, many Whites have been fighting against racism for years, and no doubt they will continue to do so. Racism can be taught in two ways: by bigoted parents and friends, or by the actions of the majority of a race. Only one in five Blacks subjected themselves to the voice of the evidence. The other 79% are contributing to racism by being racists.

TO: THE EDITORIAL CARTOONISTSPlease draw a cartoon with a Black lady justice. Have her hold the scales of justice with one hand, and with the other have her lifting up her blindfold to peek at the color of the defendant. The caption should read, “This man cannot be convicted; he’s a bro.” No, I don’t expect any newspaper to run it because they don’t want to be accused of being racists. But perhaps there may be one that will publish the truth no matter who is offended by it. Paul once agreed that “Cretans are always liars,evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (although maybe the actual number was only 79%–Titus 1:12-13).

TO: RUSH LIMBAUGH OR WLSIt’s time that something was done to improve Justice before I am buried. You guys always have such humorous songs which make sharp points that I thought you might want to try your hand at the tune, “California Girls”–only change the title and words just a little bit. Following are a few suggestions for you to think about.

CALIFORNIA JURIES 

Now, East coast juries are strict;
They listen to evidence and convict.
Just ask Susan Smith,
Whose trial was so swift,
And whose one complaint was this:
I wish I could have had a California,
Wish I could have had California,
I wish I could have had a California jury.

Now Midwesterner Jeffrey Dahmer
Did things that made him a goner.
But if he’d lived in L. A.,
He’d be a free man today,
And he’d most likely say:

I’m glad that I could have a California,
Glad that I could have California,
I’m glad that I could have a California jury.

Now, if you want to murder people,
Do it where life is cheap.
“Hire the best,” all concur,
Big Fee Bailey or Johnny Cocklebur,
And get the “not guilty” verdict.
You’ll wish that you could have a California,
Wish that you had California,
You’ll wish that you could have a California jury.

Yes, everyone says,
including the brothers Menendez:
I wish they all could be California,
Wish they all could be California,
I wish they all could be California juries.