Laws for Juvenile Delinquents and Children in Need of Care and Protection

A child is regarded as a delinquent when he/she commits an act which is against the law for the time being in force and at the same time also not accepted by the society at large. The prime law for juvenile delinquency in India for the time being in force is the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act 2015.

Earlier various laws were enacted to deal with the menace of juvenile delinquency which includes:

1. Apprentices Act,1850

This was the very first legislation which brought children on a different footing from that of adult criminals and offenders. This Act provided that children who belong to an age group of 10-18 years convicted of any offence by the Court of Law are to be given such vocational training which will help in their rehabilitation process.

2. Reformatory School Act, 1897

Under this Act, the Court was empowered to detain the juvenile delinquents in reformatory schools for a time span of 2-7 years and also mentioned that the same could not be continued after such a juvenile has attained the age of 18years.

3. Madras Children Act, 1920

This was the very first Act which brought forth the concept of juvenile courts and the same was later on followed in legislation regarding juveniles by Bengal legislature in Bengal Children Act, 1922 followed by Bombay Children Act, 1924.

4. The Children Act, 1960

This Act was a development over the previous legislation as it was passed to set a basic model which was to be followed. It provided for very elaborate and technical provisions coverings various aspects. It provided for the establishment of Special Child Welfare Boards which was specially designed to handle the cases of the neglected children. The Act also went on to create a special post for the position of a probationary officer whose function was to advise and assist the delinquent juveniles. Furthermore, it established special courts for children which dealt with the cases regarding the juvenile delinquents. This Act was the first detailed legislation discussing all the aspects regarding the juvenile delinquency

5. National Policy for The Welfare of Children, 1974

The policy was a very welcoming step towards the development of children of the nation as it laid stress on making such policies which would help in grooming and development of children and also stressed on providing equal opportunity to all children during their phase of development which would end up reducing the rate of juvenile delinquency and would increase the human resource of the nation at large. This policy along with previous legislation helped in the formulation of a uniform code for delivery of juvenile justice system in India.

6. Juvenile Justice Act, 1986

India was the first country to enumerate the principles of United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration Of Justice by enacting the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. This Act laid the basic framework of the juvenile justice system in India. The Act provided for a special approach which was required to be followed for the prevention and control of the juvenile delinquency, it has set norms and standards for the administration of juvenile justice. The Act gave an inclusive definition of juvenile. According to the Act, the juvenile is a boy who has not attained 16 years of age and a girl who has not attained 18 years of age. It also provided for the formation of special homes for the juvenile delinquents and handling of the cases of juveniles by special juvenile courts. This Act by and large provided for an approach which provided for the care, protection, rehabilitation, and treatment of the delinquent juveniles. This Act repealed all previous legislation and formed the first uniform code of juvenile justice system in India.

7. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000

This Act was a modification of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986. This Act was enforced in April 2001. This Act ensured that the children who are in need of care and protection are provided with all the necessary facilities despite their religion.

8. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act,2014

This Act replaces the previously mentioned Acts. It lays down a provision whereby juveniles between the age group of 16-18 years may be tried as adults with regards to serious and heinous crimes. The Act allowed the juvenile justice board to decide whether a juvenile should be treated as an adult in a particular case or not. The juvenile justice board constitutes a psychologist and a sociologist as well. This Act introduced the provision of Hauge Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption, 1993 which were not included in the previously mentioned legislation. The Act also provides for the adoption of the orphan, abandoned and surrendered children.

9. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015

This Act is presently in force and followed throughout India. The Act divides juveniles into two sets;

a. The child in conflict with law

b. Child in need of care and protection

The Act provides for a uniform rule for all children below the age of 18 years and also provides an exception for children belonging to the age group of 16-18years specifying that they may be tried as adults with regards to the serious and heinous offence if any committed by them. Under the said Act an imprisonment varying from 3-7 years is provided for various offences varying from serious, heinous to petty offences. It strictly laid down that no child could be awarded a sentence of death despite the offence committed by them. It also provided for a mandatory establishment of a juvenile justice board in every district which would be presided by a metropolitan magistrate and also two social workers, including a woman. The board is required to conduct a primary investigation regarding the crime committed within a particular time span and decide thereupon whether a particular child ought to be sent to a rehabilitation center or not. Lastly, a special court is also established under the Act which is empowered to try cases against the juveniles and also provided that in case such court is not established the sessions court has the jurisdiction to try the juvenile under this Act. The act also requires the establishment of a Child Welfare Committee.

Besides these legislations, various provisions are made for children in the Constitution of India under article 15(3) which enables the state to make special provisions for the development of children followed by Article 23 which prohibits human trafficking forced labour and beggar this was a practice which had exploited children badly. Also, Article 24 of the provided for the prohibition on employment of children under 14 years of age. These provisions were enacted in the Constitution to ensure that the development of the children is not hindered and that they do not tend to develop delinquent traits.

Not only limited to the constitution the India Penal Code as well and the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for special provisions for children which are as follows:

1. Section 82 of the IPC

It provides for an absolute immunity to a child below 7 years of age stating that nothing is an offence which is done by a child below 7 years of age.

2. Section 83 of the IPC

This section again provides that an offence committed by a child above 7 years of age and below 12 years is not an offence if such a child does not have sufficient maturity to understand the judge the consequences of his act.

3. section 317 of the IPC

Whoever being the father or mother of a child under the age of twelve years, having the care of such child, shall expose or leave such child in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning such child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years; or with fine, or with both.

4. section 361of the IPC

Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.

5. Section 27 of The Code of Criminal Procedure

Any offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, committed by any person who at the date when he appears or is brought before the court is under the age of sixteen years, may be tried by the court of’ a Chief- Judicial Magistrate, or by any court specially empowered under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force providing for the treatment, training and rehabilitation of youthful offenders.

We Can Downsize The Prison Industrial Complex, Part 1

We are all stakeholders in this dysfunction crime response system and we must learn to break the current dysfunctional cycle. The cycle is: crime, arrest, conviction, incarceration, release and recidivism (CACIRR) I will not bore you with the statistics. Some of the numbers you know. In fact, many of you are the statistics, because we are all stakeholders in this painful, even traumatic symbiosis of crime, arrest, conviction, incarceration, release and recidivism.

Think for a moment and I believe you will conclude, as I have, during the past 39 years, that we all occupy one or more of the following stakeholder groups in this CACIRR symbiosis: criminals, crime response professionals, citizens, careerists, change advocates, change activists and change conquerors.

Criminals are those among us who believe intensely that it is all right to harm others to gain for themselves.

Crime Response Professionals refer to the so-called criminal justice system that includes law enforcement, the judiciary, and prison officials. If you occupy this stakeholder group, please don’t take this personally, but you are authorized only to respond to crime, not attempt to prevent it. Criminals, on the other hand, function as opportunists, driven by the belief that when the possibility of reward e.g. getting over one someone, exceeds the probability of apprehension, doing crime makes sense.

Citizens include the essentially law abiding community residents who can be sub-divided into three basic groups–crime victims, potential crime victims, and the FLOC (Families and Loved Ones of Criminals). These stakeholders have at least one thing in common–citizens pay the gargantuan bill for this largely dysfunctional system, with virtually no potential for an equitable Return On Investment (ROI).

Careerists include business owners, and human resource professionals who make hiring decisions, including more often than not, saying “no” to released crminals, largely because the careerists cannot discern between changing and conning.

Change advocates refer to some of us who believe people can change and some of them will change when given a chance and taught how to do it.

Change activists refer to criminals who are mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically committed to the change continuum, to making the arduous trek from crime to contribution.

Change conquerors refer to those relative handful of transformed individuals who have broken the crime habit, earned and ever-free life and achieved their crime and prison records into insignificance.

I propose a new paradigm for dealing with this incredible societal issue. First, though, the caveat.

I don’t believe that overall people are going to get better and better, but worse and worse. I am a student of Bible prophecy, and that’s the conclusion I see there. You need to know that this perspective determines all that I believe and propose. I do believe, though, that with a well-organized, well financed innovative, creative, enthusiastic system, based in new thinking, or a pro-change paradigm, we can identify large numbers of “change prospects” who can move progressively along the change continuum.

We confront daunting challenges. First, we must see that crime is a way of thinking that justifies harming others for self-gain, and renounce that thinking in all aspects of our personal, interpersonal and community relationships. We must sacrifice the self-defeating notion that criminals are victims of uncontrollable circumstances such a poverty, diminished opportunities, etc. We must also sacrifice the somewhat silly notion that some people appear to be more genetically predisposed to do crime than others. Criminals choose that way of thinking, often very early in life, as I did. We also must sacrifice the traditional idea that by outliving a prison sentence, be it incarceration, or probation, a criminal, somehow, mysteriously “pays his or her debt to society.”

Let’s analyze that long-held notion. Precisely what is the debt, and when does the criminal pay? Consider this scenario. “MTakeaways

We are all stakeholders in this dysfunction crime response system

We must learn to break the cycle

The cycle is: crime, arrest, conviction, incarceration, release and recidivism (CACIRR) I will not bore you with the statistics. Some of the numbers you know. In fact, many of you are the statistics, because we are all stakeholders in this painful, even traumatic symbiosis of crime, arrest, conviction, incarceration, release and recidivism.
Think for a moment and I believe you will conclude, as I have during the past 39 years, that we all occupy one or more of the following stakeholder groups in this CACIRR symbiosis (Crime, Arrest, Conviction, Incarceration, Release, Recidivism): criminals, crime response professionals, citizens, careerists, change advocates, change activists and change conquerors.

Criminals are those among us who believe intensely that it is all right to harm others to gain for themselves.
Crime Response Professionals refer to the so-called criminal justice system that includes law enforcement, the judiciary, and prison officials.
Citizens include the essentially law abiding community residents who can be sub-divided into three basic groups–crime victims, potential crime victims, and the FLOC (Families and Loved Ones of Criminals). These stakeholders have at least one thing in common–citizens pay the gargantuan bill for this largely dysfunctional system, with virtually no potential for an equitable Return On Investment (ROI)
Careerists include business owners, and human resource professionals who make hiring decisions, including more often than not, saying no to individuals released from prison, largely because they cannot discern the difference between changing and conning.
Change advocates refer to some of us who believe people can change and some of them will change when given a chance and taught how to do it.
Change activists refer criminals who are mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically committed to the change continuum, to making the arduous trek from crime to contribution.
Change conquerors refer to those relative handful of former criminals who have broken the crime habit, earned and ever-free life and achieved their crime and prison records into insignificance.

I propose a new paradigm for dealing with this incredible issue in our society. First, though, the caveat. I don’t believe that overall people are going to get better and better, but worse and worse. I am a student of Bible prophecy, and that’s the conclusion I see there. You need to know that this perspective determines all that I believe and propose. I do believe, though, that with a well-organized, well financed innovative, creative, enthusiastic system, based in new thinking, or a pro-change paradigm, we can identify large numbers of “change prospects” who can move progressively along the change continuum.

We confront daunting challenges. First, we must see that crime is a way of thinking that justifies harming others for self-gain, and renounce that thinking in all aspects of our personal, interpersonal and community relationships. We must sacrifice the self-defeating notion that criminals are victims of uncontrollable circumstances such a poverty, diminished opportunities, etc. We must also sacrifice the somewhat silly notion that some people appear to be more genetically predisposed to do crime than others. Criminals choose that way of thinking, often very early in life, as I did. We also must sacrifice the traditional idea that by outliving a prison sentence, be it incarceration, or on probation, a criminal, somehow, mysteriously “pays his or her debt to society.”

Let’s analyze that long-held notion. Precisely what is the debt, and when does the criminal pay? Consider this scenario. A criminal burglarizes your home and steals a number of items. Who paid for the stolen items? You did, of course. You report the crime to the police. Who pays the police? You do, of course, as a taxpaying, reasonably law abiding citizen. The police arrest a suspect and puts the person in jail. Who pays for the jail? Yep! We do. On the designated court date, you go to court, as the crime victim. But please realize that you–as a taxpayer–pay the judge and the courtroom support staff, as well as the prosecuting attorney, and, often, the defense lawyer, too. Well, the judge sentences the criminal to 60 months in prison. Guess what, as if you didn’t know, we pay for the prisons, too. So again, what is the criminal’s debt? What does the criminal pay? Precisely when does the criminal pay his or her debt to society?

Truthfully, under our present system, criminals simply have to outlive the court sanction. The criminal confronts no challenge to change! Certainly, many prison systems offer educational and vocational programs to foster the appearance of focusing on so-called rehabilitation. The idea of so-called rehabilitation remains flawed at its core. Re-habilitation assumes a prior habilitation. But I know for a fact that many, maybe even most, criminals were never truly law abiding citizens. Additionally, rehabilitation, however, we define it, falls far short of the requirements of change. For almost 40 years, I have said: “If you send a drug dealer to prison and teach him to lay bricks, you do not release a brick mason. More likely than not, you release a drug dealer who knows how to lay bricks.

As we continue our analysis, consider this: it costs about $30,000 to keep a person in prison in this country. Add maybe another $20,000 to investigate the crime, achieve the arrest and prosecute the offender. So since, you, the citizen, aka crime victim, triggered this costly process with your report of the offense, what if the system held you individually responsible for the cost? Do you, the official asks, want to pay this in a lump sum, put it on your credit card or use our convenient monthly payment plan? Now, if you had to invest, month-by-month for 60 months, since the bill would have to be paid before the person was scheduled for release, what return on investment would you require and consider to be equitable?

Let’s tackle that issue next time.
See you at success!

Establishing the Law During the California Gold Rush

During the early days of the gold rush, the pioneer miners were forced to establish and form their own laws. Up in the mining camps there were no courts, and many of the soldiers who were sent to keep the peace in California in the earliest days after the US took possession of the land, simply deserted their ranks and headed for the gold fields to seek their fortune. A consideration of the simple processes and laws they established with the quick acting justice they distributed makes for an interesting contrast with the plodding, bloated, political and exorbitantly expensive justice system we operate today.

The mining laws of the California gold fields, as was the case in all the various diggings throughout the mining region, were made at official group meetings of the miners held for that specific purpose. Because of this the requirements did vary significantly from district to district. Unlike so many modern laws, they were not designed by hungry lawyers seeking to pad their wallets, and were generally very few and simple. These basic standards defined how many feet of ground one man was entitled to hold in a ravine how much up on the bank, and in the bed of the creek; how many of these claims he could hold at a time; and how long he could absent himself from his claim without forfeiting it. This was the case because a man was expected to work his claim each day. If he left the area permanently, his claims were considered abandoned. In many areas, a digging tool like a pick, left in the hole was all that was necessary to secure ones spot against other claimants. The rules also declared what was necessary to be done in taking up and securing a claim which, for want of water, or from any other cause, could not be worked at the time. They also provided for various special contingencies incidental to the peculiar nature of those diggings. Each miner had one vote and acted as his own legislator. It was a plain and simple democracy unequalled since the days of the Athenian Greeks.

Of course, like all laws and regulations, at times they required some revision and amendment, to suit the progress and changes of the times. In those cases, any necessary meetings were held on certain Sunday afternoons specifically set aside for legislative purposes. The miners typically met in front of the general store, often reaching numbers of several hundred. The most respected man in the camp was generally selected to preside over the meeting. If a chair and table were handy they were used, but if there was a lack of the proper furniture, he might stand upon an empty pork-barrel or climb up into the back of a wagon, which gave him a commanding position looking down on the crowd. Another respected man with the necessary literary skills of reading and writing was appointed secretary, and he would place his writing materials on some flat surface alongside of the chairman. The chairman then, addressing the crowd, would then generally explain the object for which the meeting had been called. He would open the floor to hear any gentleman who had any remarks to offer on the topic at hand. Eventually someone would propose a specific amendment of the law relating to a certain description of claim, expressing the point in a very neat and specific speech. Once his motion was duly seconded, the chance was given for any opposition to make its case and provide further discussion. In time the matter was put to a vote. If the chairman declared the change carried by the ayes, the secretary would write it all down, and it became the law of that district. Normally two or three other acts were considered and voted upon, and when the business was concluded, a vote of thanks to the chairman was passed for his supervision of the meeting. The meeting was then officially declared to be dissolved, and the crowd accordingly dribbled into the nearest bar, where the legislators, in small detachments, pledged success to each other with whiskey as fast as the storekeeper could pour the drinks. While the legislature was in session, however, everything was conducted with a serious demeanor and the utmost formality.

When the miners could not come to any settlement of some dispute among themselves, they would leave the decision to a jury of miners. When a miner’s court was to be held, a formal notice was accordingly sent to all the prospectors within two or three miles up and down the creek, requesting them to assemble at the claim in question on a certain afternoon. Although a miner calculates an hour lost as so much money out of his pocket, it was common that most of the residents would turn out as they were all interested in supporting the laws of the region. The two opposing parties then, having tossed up a coin for the first pick, would choose a number of jurymen each from the assembled crowd.

Then the jury would normally sit themselves all together in an exalted position on a heap of stones and dirt (as was common on the claims from the normal operations of digging). One of the plaintiffs, who had been chosen as spokesman for his party, would then make a speech, calling several witnesses to prove his statements, and citing the recognized laws of the diggings in support of his claims. The defendants would follow in the same manner, making the most of their version of the case. During this time, the general public, sitting in groups on the different heaps of stones piled up between the holes with which the ground was honeycombed, would smoke their pipes and watch the proceedings. After the plaintiff and defendant had each had their turn to say all they had to say about the matter, the miner’s jury would examine the state of the ground which was in dispute. They would then call some more witnesses to give further information, which is much different from our modern procedures in which a jury may ask no questions. Once all the information was considered, those pioneers would put their shaggy heads together for a few minutes, and pronounce their decision.

It is hard to fault the simple wisdom and straightforward justice of the pioneer miners. Their methods established a fair, democratic and just way of handling the law without the formality, expense and endless delays of the systems that we have now. In time, the normal trappings of civilization came to the hills and the prospector’s laws were done away with. I am not so sure that the changes which came with “civilization” were any kind of an improvement.

Top 10 Industry Associations in Criminal Justice

Individuals working in the criminal justice field have many organizations they can turn to for assistance, information, professional guidance, networking and many other purposes. Whether you have gone through school and received your degree already or not, it’s important to network with various associations in the justice field. These associations range from student groups you can join in school to industry organizations you can become a part of once you have your degree. The following are considered the top 10 industry associations in justice field:

  1. Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences: This international association has been fostering professional and scholarly activities in the field since 1963.
  2. American Criminal Justice Association (Lambda Alpha Epsilon): Students who are still in school and practicing professionals can join this association. It exposes new justice policies, procedures, technology, training, and education programs.
  3. American Board of Criminalistics: This is a collection of regional and national associations representing forensic scientists. E association has member representatives that can provide information about the board, certification examinations, proficiency testing, and more.
  4. International Association for Counterterrorism and Security Professionals: This association is concerned with tackling the challenges facing the free world and supporting professional ethics in these fields.
  5. International Association of Professional Security Consultants: The IAPSC is a consulting association with strict member guidelines. This means clients who select a consultant from this group know they are working with the best of the best.
  6. International Association for the Study of Organized Crime: Criminologists, researchers, working professionals, teachers, and students make up this information-driven association.
  7. National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice: This nonprofit justice association is a multi-ethnic and non-partisan group that is concerned with promoting positive changes and increased opportunities in the field.
  8. National Criminal Justice Association: The NCJA is a special interest group standing up for the issues of crime control and public safety for every state. This association also offers support with justice and public safety issues for the National Governors’ Association.
  9. United States Department of Justice: The Department of Justice enforces the law and defends the interests of the United States in order to protect public safety and homeland security.
  10. American Bar Association- CJ Section: This member-based organization is responsible for the ABA’s efforts to solve criminal, legal, and administrative problems in the justice field.

The ‘Rule of Law’ Promotes Liberty or Fosters Tyranny – It All Depends

Often you hear that we are ruled by laws – not by men. That implies the laws are just and protect our liberty, whereas men (and women) rule when opportunity arises to their own interests with disbenefit to others. But, of course, laws are continually created and modified by men and women to serve their interests. So, bad laws that can tyrannize some people are to be expected.

Then, when is the ‘rule of law’ promoting liberty and not fostering tyranny? It does so when it secures our unalienable rights through court processes that preserve them for each of us.

The freedom that we seek is really liberty. Liberty is freedom restrained and preserved through law. It guarantees our unalienable rights (our liberties) which are self-evident ‘rights’ embedded in the psyche of man. They arise from his nature and are unchanging.

America’s Declaration of Independence founded the U.S. as a government whose purpose is to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and happiness for each of us. These include one’s right to self-determination, to own property, to parent his child, to pursue whatever profession or enterprise he wishes, among others.

The laws which a country devises are man-made laws so they are subject to the whims, interests, and errors of those that form the laws and the rules by which they’re carried out. Good laws are those that secure the unalienable rights for each of us. But the power of special interest groups can often pervert laws jeopardizing or denying rights of some.

Bad laws were expected by our founding fathers who were tyrannized by England’s treatment of them as colonials. They also recognized that laws deteriorate over time as special interest groups grow too much in influence and control within governmental affairs.

Seeking to guarantee our rights against the government, the founding fathers created the Bill of Rights (now complemented by further amendments) which purported to express some of our rights and restrict government infringement of them. Such rights are not subject to be voted down; they’re to be secured only. They make us a republic and not a pure democracy subject to tyrannical factions.

We each confront the laws of our land when we go to court either as a defendant against the state or as a litigant in a civil suit. So courts are where the ‘rubber meets the road’ – i.e. where you find out if your government is securing your inalienable rights or not. It’s the judicial system with its rules and processes that determine if your rights are protected – or not.

*Right to trial by informed jury as protection against corrupt judicial processes and bad laws:

Because of judiciary’s unique position of authority over the laws and its rules, the founding fathers believed it to be most vulnerable to perverting the meaning of good laws and forging bad processes under their own or others’ special interests. To counter the exclusive control of the judiciary by the judicial elite, a trial by an informed jury was built into the Bill of Rights even where only a substantial sum of money was at stake in a trial.

The jury was the public’s way of participating in the judicial process as a protection against judicial perversions or the bad laws it tries to enforce. The jury is considered ‘informed’ because it had the right not only to judge the truth or falsity of the evidence, but find the defendant innocent despite the evidence if they considered the law unjust or unfair.

Thomas Jefferson considered that guaranteeing an informed jury for trials was the only way yet known to man to preserve the principles of the constitution against bad laws and a perverted judiciary. Some even considered the right to an informed jury more important to preserving our liberty than the right to vote.

*Incorporating the Maxims of law promotes truth, justice and fairness in courts:

Since it’s in the court and its processes where your rights are in jeopardy, it’s important that those processes and judgments reflect and incorporate those self-evident truths that we all know should apply. These are called Maxims of law.

The job of the Maxims is to bring out the truth of the matter. That’s because without truth you can’t have justice. And without justice, you can’t have liberty. So where the Maxims are ignored, the court is denying justice to a defendant or a litigant.

*What function do Maxims promote in Court processes?

Maxims:

– Promote truth by requiring only sworn testimony against a defendant or litigant and require that perjury be punished when evident.

– Don’t subject litigants to laws that are vague – not clear to exactly what’s required or due. Wrongs must be clearly wrong to reasonable persons – not made up whims of special interest groups

– Require clear and convincing proof for wrongs done – not accusations and preconceived victims and perpetrators

– Recognize that litigants’ motives often determine the nature of their testimony

– Imposes no punishment or obligation where no wrong is done

– Matches obligations and the benefits that accompany them to the same litigant

– Assures the legal processes that benefit one person are not denied to another person.

It’s hard to believe that there are courts that ignore such self-evident requirements to help promote fair judgments. But there are.

*Does the rule of law you’re living under mean liberty or tyranny?

Courts are where our rights are in jeopardy – where our unalienable rights are secured or not. Their position of final authority on what’s legal – versus what’s right and just – makes them dangerous to litigants and the principles of liberty.

Those who would tyrannize some while benefiting others, will do so through the judiciary and those court processes that exclude informed juries, ignore the Maxims of law, and enforce legal excuses that profess to be a greater good than our unalienable rights.

Now you can recognize if you’re tyrannized or receiving justice according to the ‘rule of law’ you’re subject to.