On Trust and Trump
On Trust and Trump
How holding Donald Trump accountable can increase our trust in the criminal justice system
Americans don’t trust their institutions as much as they used to. This is one of those rare social science claims that everyone from across the political spectrum agrees with. Across all our institutions - academia, police, media, and government - we see declining levels of trust. Trust in our government has been declining steadily since the 1960s and is now at historic lows. This is happening across all of our institutions, with sharp declines over the past several years. For example, according to a 2022 Gallup Poll, only 14% of Americans have a great deal or a lot of confidence in our criminal justice system.
Individuals must have confidence in the ability of their institutions to work for them. If people don’t trust institutions, then...well...we get what we have now. We get a rejection of claims from scientific experts about COVID and climate change, a belief that teachers and professors are doing poor jobs or indoctrinating children, a refusal to believe any news coming from “the other side,” and a hyperpolarized citizenry unwilling to compromise with people who think differently.
The indictment and upcoming trial of Donald J. Trump present a unique opportunity for one of our institutions - our criminal justice system - to show Americans that it can operate fairly and effectively.
The Key Questions
Trump has been charged with thirty-four felony counts of falsifying business records to hide his criminal conduct from voters during the 2016 presidential election. Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor subject to a fine. But because, according to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, these falsified records were used to conceal a crime, the misdemeanors have been elevated to felonies.
The most tribalized conservatives will see this as some type of politically motivated witchhunt, no matter the evidence or circumstance, and take a “they went after one of ours, so we need to go after one of theirs” approach. I personally find this appalling and a sad commentary on our polarized society.
But for the rest of us, those whose allegiance is more to America, there are two key questions we must ask ourselves:
Did the state collect reasonable evidence to suggest Trump committed these crimes?
At this stage in this saga, it is beyond doubt that Bragg has evidence linking Trump to criminal behavior. Perusing the statement of facts issued by the Manhattan DA makes for compelling reading and a future Netflix movie. Through Trump-owned organizations, checks were made to an adult film actress who threatened to publicize a sexual encounter (Stormy Daniels), to suppress the reports of a doorman claiming Trump fathered a child out of wedlock, to paying for the silence of two additional women whom Trump had sexual relations with.
Cases do not make it to the indictment stage if there is insufficient evidence to go to trial.
It is the second question that is more fundamental.
Is there a moral obligation to prosecute these crimes?
This often gets overlooked. We hear so often - if you do the crime, you must do the time. But in reality, we don’t want an overzealous state looking to enforce every rule in the book. There are too many rules. I probably committed three misdemeanors before finishing my second cup of coffee this morning. We want the state to exercise discretion when enforcing the law.
If you allow your Neighborhood Sociologist to put it in a more theoretical way, punishment for breaking laws - fines, incarceration, loss of privileges - is meted out for at least one of four reasons:
Social protection - the state punishes someone by putting them in jail or prison, thus protecting others from their future criminal behaviors
Rehabilitation - the state tries to prevent future crimes by changing the criminal’s behavior through training, treatment, or counseling
Deterrence - by punishing someone, you deter that person and others from committing similar crimes
Retribution - the state metes our punishment so that people feel a lawbreaker has been adequately punished for their crimes
If the state attempts to punish someone for breaking a law, and there is no clear purpose for that punishment, then Americans will see it as unfair.
Let’s go through these reasons.
We don’t need to be protected from Trump. Aside from a few temper tantrums where he throws his lunch against the wall, there is no history of physical violence. Social protection is not a compelling reason to go after a former president. Can he be rehabilitated? One wishes Trump could change his ways - but I believe it is a bit too late for this 70-plus-year-old narcissist. What about deterrence? Assuming that punishment will deter a person of Trump’s personality from future transgressions would be naive. Indeed, far from deterring future bad behavior, it may embolden it. If the Manhattan DA framed their case in terms of deterring future bad behavior from Trump, I, and many other Americans, would see this as simply a politically motivated show trial.
Punishing for protection, rehabilitation, or deterrence is not applicable here.
Alright...how about retribution?
Retribution
Many Americans - both Left and Right - feel that wealthy people like Donald Trump operate in this country as if they are above the law. The idea that “the rich get richer and the poor get prison” is a common and not wholly unwarranted sentiment. The Trump case presents an opportunity to do something about this unfairness in the American legal system. People want lawbreakers adequately punished. They want retribution. This sentiment of retribution appears to be the frame through which Bragg is filtering his comments, exemplified by his “no matter who you are” comment when announcing the charges.
Again, I am aware that the most ideological on the Right do not care whether or not their party’s standard bearer actually committed a crime. They will find ways to absolve Trump of wrongdoing no matter how much evidence Bragg’s team presents in court. I am also aware that we don’t want to support a precedent where a politically motivated DA uses any ticky-tack offense to haul a political opponent into court. I don’t even believe Trump should serve prison time should he be convicted.
But he needs to be brought to justice for his transgressions. He needs to be adequately punished for a history of bad behavior. Even a trial will bring some solace to people who believe the wealthy and the powerful can saunter through life throwing their money around and breaking laws with impunity.
Donald Trump has consistently straddled the law - from not paying taxes for 10 years, to having eighteen women accuse him of sexual harassment. And let’s not ever forget his involvement in the insurrection on January 6th, 2021, an event that, if successful, could have meant the end of our democracy as we know it. And this is not just any crime. His ability to use hush money to hide his multiple affairs and the alleged siring of children out of wedlock may have been the reason he was able to win the 2016 election and plunge America into chaos for four years.
Most people would gain trust in our criminal justice system if they saw a wealthy, powerful man with a history of deviant behavior legitimately brought to justice - even if he is the former president.
I go a step further in my arguments around Trump's indictment. I agree with your statement that retribution is the goal, but I also examine the importance of accountability in a democratic country.
To date, the United States has failed to bring a President or former President to trial for any crimes, even serious war crimes.
This has allowed each consecutive leader to assume he's above the law and will never face justice. He can act with relative impunity.
Trump being indicted could change that, assuming he is found guilty in a fair court of law without trickery.
That's why due process is so important.
Well written as always. I have no love for Trump but think this is a politically motivated prosecution. Bragg made prosecuting Trump a campaign promise I believe. The indictment does not state what the other violation is to justify a felony charge but if it's a campaign finance violation the Fed's already passed on that and while violations are common fines rather than prosecutions generally are the result. John Edwards was charged with campaign finance violations for allegedly funneling nearly $1,000,000 to his pregnant mistress. He was acquitted.
Retribution is a reason to prosecute but it has to be retribution for the crime charged not for Trump's generally villainous life. The indictment made about half the country happy and half the country angry. Is that really what we need right now? The best thing for the country would be to ignore Trump but the indictment also gave Trump a bump in the polls and funding. He had been sliding in both.
Ian