In the United States society has a set of complicated laws. Sometimes, legal action according to law has a social decision element that impedes the human honesty about a more humane and just decision in legal action. It is my belief that social justice should not use law as a vehicle to attain its ends. The idea of a fair trial by jury is based on giving a hearing to every case that will not bow down to the social justice decisions inherent in individual opinion. In our culture, media plays hard on outcomes for others that mean something to a larger population. This is actually a myth in most cases. Truly, legal outcomes in law are for plaintiffs and defendants and do not realistically associate a benefit beyond the decisions in the outcome that affect both. This does not mean that social justice advocates in their own arenas for their own points of view do not use these personal outcomes to leverage benefit for their causes.
As long as this phenomena in our society does not impede the fair outcomes for personal results and does not affect more humane treatment of parties, guilty or innocent, involved, I do not have issue with social results from the law. This does not mean that one case or several cannot be used to decide broader legal guidelines and decisions that affect society. In higher court levels of law, this means a representative sample of real answers that can be examined for realistic input against law only.
We need, as a people, to understand that there is a difference between effecting social change by laws and using personal situations and legal outcomes to point to social justice victories and losses. Also, prosecuting on a personal level for social justice reasons is not a viable legal action decision in any arena that maintains humane viability for the citizens residing under the trust of our laws.
Social justice can cause change. Change by social justice is not predicated on legal claims with any standing except that higher-level laws incorporated a social need.
Kimberly A. McKenzie 