Just In Case

 

Sigh.

This is one of those things that is "technically correct," which, I have on good authority, is the best kind of correct. Mr. Reich is correct that good-faith investigations and prosecutions are not, in and of themselves "retribution." Although the "good-faith" that I added (and I suspect is assumed by Mr. Reich) is doing a lot of heavy lifting, investigations and prosecutions are not justice, in and of themselves.

But if the goals of a modern justice system are intended to be some mix of incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution, then, while it might not be "getting even," exactly, "retribution" is certainly past of the picture, especially if one actually believes in any concepts of retributive justice.

Incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation are all, generally speaking, utilitarian goals of a system of criminal justice. The goal is to either raise utility or to prevent disutility. Retribution isn't on that list because, in utilitarian thought, it doesn't do anything to make anyone better off. An eye for an eye doesn't help either party see better. But not everyone is a Utilitarian, and the moral intuition that wrongdoing merits punishment, even when it isn't required to obtain the other goals of a justice system, is fairly common.

But I get it. Mr. Reich is attempting to make the point that the wave of Congressional investigations that everyone expects is coming, and the resulting prosecutions (and convictions) that a lot of people hope are coming, aren't going to be about hounding people over partisan disagreements. They're going to be about actual crimes that were committed.

Personally, I find that attitude to be quaint in the political environment of the modern United States, but I realize that Mr. Reich's understanding of "who needs to hear it" really means people who are, like him, convinced that the Trump Administration, and the technology executives who have been cozying up to it, have violated the laws of the land. And no-one ever thinks that they're being willfully perverse.

Populism, however, tends to be less concerned with good or bad acts than it is with good or bad people. And that's where things go off the rails. For certain supporters of the current Administration, the President using the Department of Justice as a cudgel isn't him misusing the institution; it's him using it go after bad people. And bad people have obviously done bad (i.e. prosecutable) things. It's the fact that it's not so obvious to the rest of us that causes a problem.

And that's likely the way that investigations and prosecutions of Trump Administration officials and corporate executive (or even another impeachment and trial of the President himself) will be seen. Because for someone who views all and sundry of them as good people, they haven't done anything wrong. And it's going to be quite a while before that changes.