A Biblical model of justice is deeply rooted in the moral, ethical, and legal teachings found within the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. This model emphasizes principles that are both timeless and profound, reflecting the character and laws of God as understood in Judeo-Christian traditions.
1. Righteousness and Equity: At the heart of Biblical justice is the concept of righteousness, which is integrally connected to fairness and equity. The Hebrew word "tzedakah," often translated as righteousness, implies living in right relationship with God and others, promoting fairness in all dealings. It is not simply a legalistic adherence to laws but involves a heartfelt commitment to justice as a reflection of God's nature (Proverbs 21:3).
2. Compassion and Mercy: Biblical justice also encompasses compassion and mercy, as seen in the teachings of Jesus and the prophets. The call to love one's neighbor and care for the marginalized—widows, orphans, and strangers—is a recurring theme. This reflects a justice that goes beyond retribution to include restoration and healing (Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:7).
3. Restitution and Restoration: Unlike purely punitive systems, the Biblical model emphasizes restitution and restoration. The Mosaic Law includes provisions for compensating those who have been wronged, thereby restoring relationships and community harmony (Exodus 22:1-14). This approach seeks to repair the harm done and reintegrate offenders into society.
4. Accountability and Repentance: Accountability is a key component, with individuals expected to acknowledge their wrongdoings and seek forgiveness. Repentance is not merely a personal act but a communal process that restores relationships with God and others (Psalm 51:1-4; Luke 19:8-9).
5. Divine Justice: Ultimately, Biblical justice acknowledges the sovereignty of God as the final judge. Human systems are seen as reflections of divine justice, which will be fully realized in God's kingdom. The eschatological aspect of justice assures believers that ultimate justice will be served, even if it is not fully realized in this life (Romans 12:19; Revelation 21:4).
A Biblical model of justice integrates righteousness, mercy, restoration, accountability, and divine sovereignty. It challenges contemporary legal systems to incorporate compassion and restorative practices, emphasizing that true justice involves healing, reconciliation, and the pursuit of peace. This model calls for a justice that is transformative, seeking the well-being of individuals and communities in alignment with divine principles.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
Raymond Flanks is a man who was wrongfully convicted of murder and spent nearly 39 years in prison before being exonerated and released in 2022.
Arrest and Conviction
In December 1983, at the age of 20, Flanks was arrested for robbing a New Orleans supermarket. While in custody, police found a gun on him that they wrongly connected to the fatal shooting of an elderly man named Martin Carnesi during a botched robbery. Despite inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony and evidence, Flanks was convicted of murder in 1985 and sentenced to life without parole.
Incarceration and Exoneration
Flanks spent most of his time incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, known as Angola. He maintained his innocence throughout his imprisonment, writing to the Innocence Project multiple times. In 2020, the Innocence Project New Orleans took on his case and uncovered that the prosecution had withheld key evidence that might have led police to another suspect.
On November 17, 2022, at the age of 59, Flanks' conviction was overturned, and he was released from prison after nearly 39 years of incarceration. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys argued for the conviction to be overturned due to the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony that were kept from the original jury.
Personal Life
During his time in prison, Flanks reconnected with Cassandra Delpit, an old friend from his neighborhood who became his life partner. They bonded during visits at the Angola Prison Rodeo, where Flanks would sell crafts he had made.
Flanks' case highlights issues within the criminal justice system, particularly in Louisiana, which has one of the highest exoneration rates in the country. His exoneration was made possible through the efforts of the Innocence Project New Orleans and the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Civil Rights Division.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan environmental advocacy organization that focuses on protecting the environment in the southeastern United States. Founded in 1986, it has grown to become the largest environmental law organization in the region.
Key Features
Mission and Focus: SELC's primary mission is to protect clean air, clean water, and a livable climate while preserving the region's natural resources. They tackle a wide range of environmental challenges, including climate change, wildlife protection, and land conservation.
Geographic Scope: The organization operates in six southeastern states: Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. They also maintain an office in Washington, D.C. to address federal issues.
Legal Expertise: SELC employs over 100 lawyers and has a total staff of about 200 working across nine offices. They use their legal expertise to challenge environmental threats through litigation, policy advocacy, and community partnerships.
Major Initiatives
SELC has been involved in several significant environmental campaigns:
Coal Ash Cleanup: They've led efforts to force utilities to properly store or recycle coal ash, resulting in major cleanups across the Southeast.
Pipeline Opposition: SELC played a crucial role in the cancellation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline after a six-year campaign.
Endangered Species Protection: They've successfully challenged permits for projects that threaten endangered species, such as the N.C. 540 highway extension.
Land Conservation: SELC has prevented construction and logging on approximately 700,000 acres of land in their six-state region.
Energy Market Regulation: They've partnered with other nonprofits to challenge energy market proposals that could negatively impact the environment.
While SELC is widely recognized for its environmental protection efforts, it's worth noting that the organization has faced criticism from some quarters for its opposition to certain energy infrastructure projects, including nuclear energy initiatives.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
In the aftermath of the 2020 Presidential election, the role of lawyers in election challenges has become a focal point in discussions about legal ethics. The participation of lawyers in efforts to overturn the election results has highlighted the need for a deeper understanding of the ethical boundaries set by the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. As legal professionals consider representing clients in future election cases, it is crucial to navigate the ethical landscape with care to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and protect democratic principles.
Understanding the Ethical Landscape
Lawyers are bound by several key ethical duties that become particularly significant in the context of election litigation. These include the duty to:
Competence (Rule 1.1): Lawyers must possess the necessary legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation for representation.
Exercise Independent Professional Judgment (Rule 2.1): Lawyers should provide candid advice and refrain from allowing personal biases or external pressures to compromise their professional judgment.
Avoid Frivolous Claims (Rule 3.1): Lawyers must not bring or defend a proceeding unless there is a basis in law and fact that is not frivolous.
Refrain from Making False Statements (Rule 3.3 and Rule 4.1): Lawyers must not knowingly make false statements of fact or law to a tribunal or third parties.
Avoid Assisting in Fraudulent Conduct (Rule 1.2(d) and Rule 8.4(c)): Lawyers must not assist clients in conduct that is criminal or fraudulent.
Lessons from the 2020 Election Challenges
The involvement of lawyers in the attempts to challenge the 2020 election results provides a cautionary tale. Lawyers such as Rudolph Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark, Kenneth Chesebro, and John Eastman faced significant ethical scrutiny for their roles. The legal strategies employed often involved promoting unfounded claims of election fraud and advocating for legal theories that lacked a basis in established law.
Meritless Claims and False Statements: Many lawyers involved in the election challenges made statements and pursued legal actions that were unsupported by evidence. This conduct violated rules against making false statements and pursuing frivolous litigation, leading to potential disciplinary actions.
Pressure and Ethical Judgment: Lawyers must maintain independent judgment and resist external pressures that could lead to unethical conduct. The actions of those who resisted pressure to overturn the election results demonstrate the importance of adhering to ethical standards even in politically charged situations.
First Amendment Considerations: While lawyers have First Amendment rights, these rights are limited by their ethical duties. The balance between free speech and ethical obligations is complex, especially when speech could undermine public trust in democratic processes.
Practical Guidelines for Lawyers
When considering representation in election-related cases, lawyers should adhere to the following guidelines to ensure ethical compliance and protect the integrity of the legal profession:
Thoroughly Assess the Merits: Before accepting a case, evaluate the factual and legal basis of the claims. Ensure that there is credible evidence to support any allegations of election irregularities or fraud.
Exercise Independent Judgment: Maintain objectivity and avoid allowing political affiliations or pressures to influence your legal advice and actions.
Communicate Transparently: Provide clients with honest assessments of their cases, including the potential legal consequences of pursuing certain strategies.
Uphold Integrity in Public Statements: Be cautious about making public statements regarding election cases. Ensure that any statements made are truthful and do not mislead the public or undermine trust in the electoral process.
Stay Informed on Ethical Standards: Continuously update your understanding of ethical rules and standards, particularly as they relate to election law and litigation.
Conclusion
As stewards of the legal system, lawyers have a pivotal role in safeguarding democratic processes. By adhering to ethical standards and exercising sound judgment, lawyers can contribute to a fair and transparent electoral system while upholding the public’s trust in the legal profession. Whether navigating the complexities of election law or providing counsel in politically sensitive situations, ethical diligence remains paramount.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)1 is a nonprofit public interest law firm in the United States, dedicated to defending individual liberty and property rights against government overreach. Established in 1973, it is the oldest libertarian public interest law firm in the country.
PLF provides pro bono legal representation, files amicus curiae briefs, and holds administrative proceedings with the aim of supporting property rights, equality and opportunity, and the separation of powers. The organization is known for its strategic litigation, communications, and research efforts to battle for freedom in courts and public opinion.
The foundation has a robust record in the United States Supreme Court, having won 18 cases as of April 2024. Its litigation work includes challenging regulations that it views as infringing on individual rights, such as property rights and free speech, and opposing laws that it believes violate the separation of powers.
PLF operates without government funding, relying on donations from individuals, foundations, and small businesses[2]. It has offices in Sacramento, California; Arlington, Virginia; and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and employs over 100 staff members.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
Freedom is a core value deeply ingrained in American culture and identity. It's right there in the Declaration, that we are endowed by our Creator "with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Since freedom, rights, and liberty are often used interchangeably which can be confusing, I distinguish them. People have the liberty make individual choices about their life, beliefs, and actions without undue government interference, to self-determine.
Rather than a list of "rights," people first have liberty. Liberty extends to what you think and say including the liberty to think nothing, say nothing. It extends to participating in government. It extends to the opportunity to pursue economic goals, own property, and engage in free enterprise. It extends to what you do for housing, clothing, and what you eat including being homeless, naked, and starving.
The government can limit liberty to the degree it has a government function to do so. Considering the two most suspect liberties above, the government can limit people's nakedness in public. It can also limit free enterprise. It is a government function to restrict the manufacturing and distribution, for example, of methamphetamines. People, too, can impose limitations on themselves. Most people decide for themselves to put on clothes before venturing outside. Most people choose not to manufacture "meth" because use results in severe health issues, including dental problems ("meth mouth"), skin sores, and increased risk of infectious diseases due to needle sharing. In a group, the quality of liberty is directly proportional to people's choices to accept personal responsibility and satisfy their obligations.
For many Americans, liberty, including the liberty of self restraint, is the defining characteristic of their national identity. This emphasis on liberty has deep historical roots, from the motive energizing immigration to the New World to the American Revolution's fight against British rule.
When a person is found guilty of a crime in the United States and sentenced to prison, the primary consequence is the deprivation of their liberty. A person in prison is told when to get up, when and what to eat, when to shower, and when to go to bed. Whatever liberties might remain are severely restricted. The restriction is intended to create a safe environment inside the prison walls. It is also intended for retribution.
Retribution is the concept that people found guilty of a crime should be punished. Their punishment is the deprivation of liberty. When punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the offense, it serves as a form of justice for the victim and society at large.
Where a judge intends to exact punishment beyond confinement, they can order specific form of punishment. A historic example is "hard labor." A judge could simply order a person to serve three years in prison or they could order three years in prison at hard labor. Hard labor is a punishment where prisoners are required to perform difficult and physically demanding work as an additional punishment for their crimes. Hard labor as punishment has been banned in many countries but is still practiced.
In the context of prisons, the phrase "conditions of confinement" refers to the living environment and treatment of inmates within a correctional facility. Where the quantity of a criminal sentence is simply a number of years, the quality of a criminal sentence are based on conditions of confinement. The quality of a three year sentence is very different if it is three years at hard labor versus three years with no labor. Where courts do not order certain conditions of confinement, what do we intend for those conditions to be? Do we, for example, intend for people in prison to be
subjected to temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit or below freezing?
starved?
placed in a room with so many others that it encourages disease and violence (on a July visit to an Alabama jail, I saw six men in one six foot by 8 foot (6'x8') cell with a shared toilet)?
routinely assaulted (beaten, cut, stabbed)?
extorted?
raped?
murdered?
I suggest that whatever our intention is, it should be written into the court order. And if a court resists or refuses to write it out, it should be scrutinized as punitive excess.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
