The passage of time changes how we view human reality. When a single legal case takes thirty-three years to conclude, it ceases to be a simple matter of crime and punishment. It becomes an entry point into a much deeper exploration of how society functions. The story of an eighty-four-year-old man convicted for an event that took place more than three decades ago is not just an extreme example of bureaucratic delay. It is a puzzle that forces us to examine the invisible forces shaping our collective life. We are accustomed to thinking of the law as an objective machine that processes facts and delivers outcomes. Yet when the machine takes a lifetime to complete a single task, we must ask what it is actually doing during those silent decades. The true question is not why the process is slow but rather what that slowness reveals about power, equality, and the stories we tell ourselves to maintain peace of mind.
Looking past the official explanations helps clarify this dynamic. The standard narrative suggests that courts are simply overwhelmed by a massive volume of cases. We are told that there are too few judges, too many disputes, and not enough resources to manage the load. While these administrative facts are true, they do not fully explain the phenomenon of selective momentum. Some cases move through the legal architecture with incredible speed. High-profile disputes involving significant corporate interests or powerful political figures often find quick resolutions. In contrast, the quiet disputes of ordinary citizens seem to enter a state of permanent suspension. This contrast suggests that time itself is a resource that is distributed unequally. The judicial system does not move slowly by accident. It moves at different speeds for different people because time can be used as a tool to exhaust those who lack the means to fight back.
This reality introduces a new perspective on what a courtroom actually represents. In theory, a court is a space where the rules apply equally to everyone regardless of their status outside its walls. In practice, the legal arena functions as a market where time can be bought, sold, and manipulated. A wealthy individual does not merely hire a lawyer for their knowledge of the law. They can command the clock. Through endless requests for delays, technical objections and procedural manoeuvres, the affluent can push a final decision into the distant future. For a person of substantial wealth, a delay is a shield that allows them to continue living their life without interruption. For a person without resources, that same delay is a slow financial and psychological weight that wears down their resolve until they can no longer participate.
Evaluating how society responds to this state of affairs reveals another layer of the issue. When a system functions so poorly for so long, one would expect a continuous state of public outrage. Instead, we observe a profound shift from anger to quiet acceptance. Psychologists refer to a state where individuals stop trying to change a painful situation because they have been conditioned to believe that nothing they do will matter. This learned helplessness is not a natural human trait. It is a learned behaviour that develops when people repeatedly witness the failure of institutional promises. Over time, the expectation of failure becomes the baseline. People no longer ask why a case took thirty years. They simply express a quiet relief that it ended at all. This shift in mindset is incredibly useful for a flawed institution because a populace that expects nothing will never demand accountability.
This acceptance creates a unique type of cultural amnesia. When a legal battle lasts for three decades, the original context of the dispute fades away. The people involved in the world change, and the immediate impact of the event is lost. By the time a verdict is delivered, it no longer serves as a meaningful deterrent to the community. It becomes an historical curiosity. We must wonder who truly benefits from a system where closure arrives only when the participants are near the end of their lives. The answer is that the structure itself benefits. By delaying outcomes until they no longer matter politically or socially, the system avoids the friction that comes with immediate, decisive action. It allows conflicts to dissolve through natural attrition rather than resolving them through active intervention.
This structural survival mechanism is further protected by the way modern society is organised into competing factions. In an ideal democracy, citizens would unite to demand efficient institutions because fair rules benefit the majority. However, the public is often deeply divided along lines of identity, belief and political loyalty. These divisions ensure that people rarely look at institutional performance objectively. When a controversial figure faces the legal system, public opinion splits instantly based on prior loyalties rather than the facts of the case. One group will view the process as a targeted attack, while another will see it as long overdue accountability. Because the conversation immediately shifts to identity, the deeper problem of how the system functions is completely ignored. The public spends its energy fighting itself while the underlying machinery remains untouched.
This dynamic reveals that the greatest threat to institutional reform is not corruption in the traditional sense. The true obstacle is the fragmentation of public attention. When people are constantly encouraged to view every event through the lens of tribal conflict, they lose the capacity for systemic criticism. If a citizen believes that the primary goal of life is to see their chosen group win, they will gladly tolerate flawed institutions as long as those flaws occasionally disadvantage their rivals. This mindset transforms the legal system from a search for truth into a weapon to be captured and used against others. In such an environment, the slow pace of justice is not viewed as a failure of design but rather as a feature that can be exploited depending on who holds power at any given moment.
To look at this situation from a fresh angle, we must question our definition of order. We often assume that an orderly society is one where institutions exist, and rules are written down on paper. But true order requires that these structures fulfil their stated purpose in a way that aligns with human experience. When the gap between the law on paper and the law in practice becomes too wide, the concept of order becomes a fiction. A system that takes thirty-three years to decide a local dispute is not maintaining order. It is maintaining a state of low-level exhaustion that keeps citizens too tired to question the larger arrangement of power. The outcome of the selective system is that it succeeds by appearing to fail. Its inefficiency is the very thing that protects it from scrutiny because it makes the task of reform seem too massive for any group to undertake.
Breaking free from this cycle requires a fundamental shift in how we evaluate our institutions. We must stop judging a system by its occasional historic verdicts or its grand declarations. Instead, we must evaluate it by its everyday performance for the most vulnerable members of society. Justice cannot be measured solely by the outcome of a single trial. It must be measured by the human cost required to reach that outcome. When a citizen must dedicate their entire adulthood just to hear a court speak a word of truth, the price of that truth has become too high. The path forward begins when we refuse to accept the narrative of unavoidable delay and begin to view institutional efficiency not as a luxury but as a basic requirement for a dignified collective life.
References: