top of page
  • Foto del escritorKaren Ness

Apolitical Justice


politics – competition for power

impartiality – to not give preference or advantage to one part over another in a reparation

unanimity – the decision of a whole group, not a part; means of ensuring impartiality and preventing social fragmentation

liability – the understanding of the Law that makes a person subject to punishment for violating it

Justice – the equitable and impartial enforcement of the Law on liable inhabitants of the State



They say that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but it is impossible for one person to be eternally vigilant. I have always advocated for trial by Jury as a solution because it spreads the responsibility for ensuring that liberty and property are respected by government.

However, the Jury is no substitution for individual faith in divine, natural, or cooperative provision. Without that confidence, we resort to coercion and deceit, instead of cooperating to make the most of that provision.

So that Society will not fragment, public force must not be used against those who are not liable or did not violate the Law. Doing so generates mistrust and division in Society and if it is allowed to continue, the parts become hostile to each other and that Society can enter into violent civil unrest. Then it weakens and it is incapable of defending itself from autocrats and against stronger States that are still internally more united.

A sentence of conviction by the government should not represent only the opinion of a part of Society, but the general or total will. That is the great advantage of the Jury, its obligation to unanimity that gives it impartiality and apolitical status, when it is drawn at random from the liable population of the State.

Allowing only one part of Society to judge the validity of the application of public force, a socio-economic level, a profession or sector whose purpose and interests are different from those of society in general is to divide the Society in classes, the ones who can defend themselves and those who cannot.

Because it is about all the members of Society being able to live without coercion and deceit, about everyone having freely acquired rights and obligations, about the respect for everyone’s body and what they have acquired without coercion or deceit. And, if someone is hurt by the actions of other persons, it’s about them being equitably compensated by the person legally responsible, no matter who they are, in a way that Society in general feels is just, not only the part to which the supposed aggressor or victim belong.

The question will always be: who should be trusted with the judicial process during a trial and the approval of the use of public force by the chief of State against a person accused? A magistrate? Magistrates are necessary; with their knowledge and wisdom, they can prevent that a person accused go through the torment of a trial because of legislation that violates the Law or if there is insufficient evidence.

But, the magistrate is part of a government composed of individuals competing for the control of power for their personal benefit, subject to strong pressures, threats, and seduction. They are fallible humans with power over multiple cases, whose verdicts set precedent and can damage Society irreparably.

Or should the judicial process during a trial and the approval of the use of public force be entrusted to those who must suffer the wrong use or abuse of public force most intensely and immediately, Society itself, as represented by the People in the Juries, who do not go through a political process before or during the trial and must give a unanimous, therefore as impartial a verdict as is humanly possible?

It shouldn’t be entrusted to another part of Society that would only enter into competition for power with the groups already established in the political system, but to multiple juries of different people for each case, chosen at random who cannot compete politically, that cannot approve the application public force by the chief of State unless they are unanimous in their verdict.

In the section on the State, it is suggested that the State is sovereign if it can defend itself from coercion; likewise, a Society or People is sovereign with respect to the government if it can defend itself from government. So, for a Society to be able to defend itself, we are faced with the choice, on the one hand, of magistrates or “judges”, whose interests are embedded in the inevitable competition for power, and the Jury, whose interests lie with society and whose incentive to bring in a unanimous verdict is to cooperate.

Two imperfect options, but, the capacity of human beings to deceive is so great, it does not leave us better ones. We need to chose the one that can do society the least harm.


Miscellanous Terms

anacyclosis – a tendency in States to change the type of government in response to violation of the Law with public force

monarchy – a State with a genetic lineage represented by a monarch as chief of State who controls public power

oligarchy – a State with a minority that controls public power

republic – a State whose constitution distributes the control of public power among different political structures in the government

representative democracy – a State that elects the individuals who control public power

populist democracy – a State whose majority accepts the populist ideology and surrenders the sovereignty of the People in exchange for the equalization of wealth and power in Society

plutocracy – a State whose government is dominated by officials who use public power to enrich themselves

anarchy – a territory without an organized collective force to enforce the rules in the whole territory

dictatorship – a State whose People have surrendered control of public power and their sovereignty to an individual or group

State with a Jury system – a State whose People have the power in juries to declare if a person accused has violated the Law and, therefore, if public force may be used against him or her


Photograph: Deval Kulshrestha - File:1660 blk 19329 zoom.png, CC BY-SA 4.0,

1 visualización0 comentarios

Entradas Recientes

Ver todo


bottom of page