After his conviction in a New York court, President Trump has been vocal about his belief that the entire process was rigged against him. He maintains that the trial was a corrupt attempt to persecute him and sway the 2024 presidential election. Critics of the former president have accused him of undermining public trust in our criminal justice system and endangering our democracy. Many in the media have amplified this criticism.
It’s important to understand that the critics who dismiss the value of criticizing the justice system are actually doing a disservice to our democracy. In reality, constructive criticism of the justice system is crucial for protecting our freedoms and upholding the rule of law. When the justice system makes mistakes or overreaches, it’s our responsibility as citizens to speak out and hold it accountable. Without this necessary feedback, our republic is at risk of losing its foundation of justice and fairness.
Our nation’s founders were well aware of the importance of this necessity.
In the People v. Croswell libel case, Alexander Hamilton, who was representing the defendant, issued a warning about the dangerous and fatal tyranny that operates by targeting and sacrificing individuals under the guise of law, with the help of dependent and partial tribunals. Hamilton emphasized that this is the most dangerous and certain form of tyranny that one should be aware of.
Hamilton urged us to remain vigilant against such measures and take a strong stance to resist them. He believed that we must continue to resist until we have removed the demagogues and tyrants from their self-proclaimed positions of power. Any reasonable American would not interpret Hamilton’s words as a threat against democracy.
Thomas Jefferson, who was a rival of Hamilton, shared a similar perspective. During his presidency, Jefferson granted pardons to publishers who had been convicted under the Sedition Act of 1798. This act was considered unconstitutional by Jefferson, and he believed that the courts had committed grave injustices by convicting defendants under it. The pardoning power is included in the US Constitution and many state constitutions, and it is frequently utilized precisely because prosecutors and courts can make mistakes or even intentionally misuse their authority over the lives and freedoms of citizens.
Federal law recognizes the dangers posed by those who abuse their power under the guise of upholding the law. Title 18 of the United States Code explicitly prohibits and penalizes the “deprivation of rights under color of law.” This provision acknowledges that even those tasked with administering justice can sometimes act unlawfully and abusively. The United States Department of Justice’s website notes that this provision can be applied not only to law enforcement officers and prison guards but also to judges, district attorneys, and other public officials as appropriate. The provision serves as a reminder that not all actions taken within our justice system are above reproach and must be subject to scrutiny.
It’s no secret that the issue of corrupt and politicized abuses within the justice system has been a problem in American history. Even in modern times, it’s still prevalent, especially when political tensions are high and communities are outraged by leaders they despise. One example of this is in the 1960s when authorities in Alabama put Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on trial for allegedly committing perjury in connection with his tax filings.
The motive behind this trial was to cunningly strip away a prominent American political and social movement of its influential leader. Despite the fact that the all-white Alabama jury was biased, they were able to recognize the unjust nature of the case and delivered an acquittal. Dr. King expressed his gratitude towards the jury for their impartiality and fairness in their verdict. He also praised the Alabama judge for his dignified and honorable conduct throughout the trial.
In certain situations, it is permissible and crucial to criticize prosecutors and courts. However, the critical question that arises now is whether such criticism is justifiable in President Trump’s New York conviction. Is it reasonable for impartial Americans to echo Dr. King’s words and praise the Manhattan jury for a “fair” verdict and commend Judge Merchan for his “high and noble” handling of the case?
According to Elie Honig, a renowned legal analyst and former federal prosecutor at CNN, it is unnecessary to turn to Trump or his discontented followers for an answer to this question. In an article published in New York Magazine, Honig argues that the prosecutors managed to convict Trump, but only after twisting the law to their advantage.
