Equal Protection of the Law...for Some

One of the principles of justice the early American fathers considered important enough to write into the Constitution is that of equal justice for all. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed into law in 1868, recognized the unequal and inconsistent application of justice, particularly between wealthy and influential white American citizens and poor and underrepresented minorities. This important Amendment reads in part, "No state may deny any person, under its government, equal protection of the law." 

Since the passing of this Amendment, the state and federal courts have interpreted this Amendment to apply in various situations, including the equal administration of justice at sentencing and the equal application of laws, regardless of wealth and influence. Unfortunately, despite the ideology of equality endemic in this Amendment and its jurisprudent progeny, justice is not equal for all. 

Since coming to power in January, the Trump administration has shown itself to be unfriendly to the prison reform movement that has been gaining momentum over the last decade. One of this administration's first orders of business included cancelling the Justice Department's defense of the FCC's ruling that prison telephone rates could not exceed certain limits. This ruling had been appealed, naturally, by the phone service providers and by several states (including Michigan) who make money from kickbacks on prisoners' already expensive phone calls. Although the Justice Department under President Obama had fought for limits on these exorbitant rates, President Trump did not consider these excessive rates oppressive.

Further eroding his support of equal justice, President Trump recently pardoned the very controversial and self-proclaimed "America's toughest sheriff" Joe Arpaio of his conviction for criminal contempt of a federal judge's order prohibiting unlawful immigration patrols. While I am an ardent supporter of state rights, I also find it nauseating that President Trump would pardon someone who made a career of humiliating people who had been convicted of a crime. Arpaio's pardon is a perfect illustration of how, despite the constitutional mandate of equal protection, wealthy and powerful people are often above the law. He willfully broke the law because he believed himself to be above it, and President Trump only confirmed this belief by pardoning him.

For me, Arpaio is the face of retributive justice gone awry. Since Arpaio is such an advocate for law and justice, he ought to have the privilege of experiencing that justice for his own crime. Perhaps a little time in his own pink underwear and tent cities and time spent on his own chain gangs would have softened his heart a little towards those he was quick to judge so harshly. Nobody will know for sure now, but maybe if Arpaio had to spend a little time living with the men he loved to humiliate, he would have gained an appreciation for their humanity and begun to view them with a heart of restoration. Sometimes the most vocal opponents of restorative justice can become its most ardent supporters, if only they experience the other side. Sadly, it took coming to prison for me to gain a deep appreciation for equal justice and to become an advocate for restorative justice--even for people like Sheriff Arpaio.