The Curse of the Prophets: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Richard D. Ackerman (2010-2011, 2d.Ed.)
Riverside County Bar Magazine Article
When first asked to write this article, I didn’t quite know what to think or how to approach the issues. Naturally, one would inquire as to why they had been chosen to write an article on the idea that ‘no good deed goes unpunished.’ Perhaps it’s just because I truly believe in a uniform justice system that cannot be destroyed or weakened by the whims of political correctness, unjustified entitlements to power, or discrimination. Maybe it’s the fact that I have lost on so many unpalatable positions, that I am perceived as being the consistent bearer of the losing position.
Perhaps the characteristics of being hopeful, tenacious and committed are necessarily defined by commitment to suffering humiliation. For all I know, it may just be my fearless stupidity.
A model justice system is ruled by reason, equity, and a sense that one is entitled to rely on equal application of uniform law. With this in mind, it also must be remembered that today’s dissent may very well be basis for tomorrow’s justice. We know this, yet so often fear being the voice of dissent or a counterbalance to excess power.
Fortunately, the otherwise controlling fear of change can be defeated. The recent decision by Judge Virginia Phillips on the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy aptly demonstrates the power of commitment to principle. While I did not agree with the decision for reasons of the separation of constitutional powers, I bear the deepest respect for her courage to take on the entire military system in the pursuit of equality. Indeed, the very essence of dissent is what makes for human progress and development of the unique democratic experience bestowed upon us.
One might want to say that this has nothing to do with being punished per se’ for good deeds. Nothing could be further from the truth. For its power to be felt, prophecy nearly requires persecution. For the known history of humankind, we have seen one prophet after another being condemned for simply taking a stand and pronouncing the truth.
The essential form of what it means to be a prophet is historically seen in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the Buddha, even the unimposing Dharma Bum, or just about any other perceived revolutionary.
By the way, don’t let your sensibilities about religion get in the way of a good thought about what it means to be human. Don’t let my biases as to Biblical prophets interfere with the definition of yours (i.e., perhaps the Buddha or others). Prophecy has never been a form of proselytization nor evangelism. The latter require the ability to sell or enforce an idea or belief. Prophecy is most defined by its initial lack of luster and desirability (i.e., because of its demand of human introspection).
I must also mention that I believe that prophets are neither nuts nor fortune-tellers. To be a prophet means to be a representative of something higher than yourself. It doesn’t mean you are a great person. It certainly does not mean that you have any more power than anyone else. You bear the calling of a messenger. You get to bear complete responsibility for whatever you say and may even bear the risk of death itself.
Theoretically, each of us in the law ought to be a prophet on behalf of the Constitution and of the Judicial Branch in all of its noble purposes.
Of course, however, there must be a price for one’s desire to profess the law as it is, and the reason which provides the lifeblood of the law. The price for your message may very well be disdain, frustration, mockery, lack of understanding, and intolerance. As was recently pointed out by Jack Clarke, one of my most respected colleagues, if it was not for Dr. Martin Luther King, and so many others, we would not know the concept equality as we now know it to be. What was the price Dr. King paid? His very life. Yet, his prophecy and vision lead to the conclusion that we all ought to be equally able to seek the highest that humanity has to offer. This principle seemingly should never have been the barter for death. His humiliation became a call for human dignity.
What is the sacrifice you would be willing to make in order to be a seeker of truth? I don’t know if we would all deny representation of a well-paying client with a bad cause. It doesn’t seem respectable that one should disagree with the mainstream. Would you challenge a judge openly on a matter or law, or hide behind the veil of secrecy provided by ‘papering the judge’? Will you and your house follow the law? Will you abide in the law and all of its travails? Would you be willing to die to feed the life of another perceived to be of no value?
Often, respect for the law means that one will get to unpalatable conclusions. Being truthful carries the risk of scorn. This also means that one might as well plan on losing some arguments since reason, consistency, and justice require a stern heart and a desire to be magnanimous regardless of opposition. Is strength and character found in accepting the status quo? Or would it be better to define the status quo ante bellum, even if someone else may have to carry the torch after your embattled demise?
In the case of a being a lawyer, your representation of the law, as a higher cause, may simply mean that you have to be willing to respect the authority of the Court, but yet advocate for a position you know to be inconsistent with the realities of the times. Humility in purpose has oft been the hallmark of a strong prophet. Simply staying in the ring, without a complete knock-out, becomes the monument to one’s identity.
As of late, it seems that just about everybody needs to somehow be politically, religiously, or spiritually neutral. This sickly complacency starves the human condition of its vitality. Only an honorable judge needs to bear the responsibility of being completely neutral until the time of ultimate judgment under the law of our time.
Indeed, at the time of judgment under the law, not even a judge must remain wholly neutral. Judgment ultimately entails the adoption of a steadfast position. Our judges bear the message of a reliable system of law. While rendering judgment does not necessitate the moral judgment of another, it certainly does require a willingness to rely on a foundation of truth. Where the truth becomes elusive, fear of change causes manifest injustice. If one cannot move from neutrality to judgment, one should not bear the position of being the arbiter of any dispute. If one wants to find power in being wholly neutral from beginning to end, take up mediation or marital counseling.
Neither the parties nor their attorneys should be expected to maintain complete neutrality in their positions. Not only is this psychologically impossible, it is unreasonable and a disservice to the calling of the profession. Neutrality can be downright dishonorable. The omission to act can amount to complicity in evil. While it is true that one must be objective, it does not follow that one must simply concede to the most politically acceptable position. The acceptability of particular political positions changes over time. The failure to act in the face of intellectual tyranny has proven itself, time and again, to be consistently destructive.
Some would say that this is an over-dramatization of what it means to be a lawyer. I think not. Indeed, I think it is a categorical imperative that we not be governed by reference to what our fellow attorneys might think. Worse yet is the situation where we run from the law for fear of those who have not been blessed with the same gifts of knowledge we bear. We don’t define our conduct by the conduct of others. Neither hope nor faith would have a home in a static moral environment.
It is not sufficient that we simply do what is necessary to get by and achieve a result that just makes everybody happy. Were it left to the happiness or perceived satisfaction of a given society in time, slavery would be but just one more accepted condition of being part of a human power structure. Or, perhaps, the perceived right to be free of the crime of seditious libel against the government would be just a fleeting glimpse of true human freedom. Perhaps the call of secularism would be the death of a hope in ultimate justice, regardless of what happens by mistake, evil, or just happenchance in this life.
The job requirements of being an advocate may very well mean that one is required to represent the higher principle of maintaining a system that can be relied upon by all regardless of the one’s perceived sins committed against society and its powers.
For, as has been said in other contexts, we wrestle not against the flesh but principalities. Indeed, we become free by our very adherence to the strictures of the Constitution. Paradoxically, we can find complete solace in a result we neither wanted nor one that could not have been foretold.
The fear of humiliation shouldn’t be confused with the humility which may be exactly what is required in a given situation. The unintended indignity of being told to sit at the back of a bus becomes the clarion call for the desire to stand up for the sacred privilege of defining the essence of human dignity for future generations. Perhaps being called to the stench and squalor of a foreign place might lead to the conclusion that we justly be called blessed. Don’t be afraid to accept punishment for your good deeds.
Be not afraid. For the Good Judge shall bring down his judgment on all of us in the end.
Livelyackerman's Blog 