cavernio (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} cavernio) wrote,@ 2007-02-22 14:04:00 |
|
Law
I think I should rename the title of my journal to something like "Complaining Vern". It seems suitable.
Yes, I'm going to complain about more things in this entry.
On The Current, on CBC radio (no, I'm too lazy to link anything) this morning, I listened for about a minute before turning it off because of what this one lady who was being interviewed had said. I'm not even sure what the premise of the interview was, but I think it was something along the lines of how punishment should work. This lady had been raped at some time in the past (no tears or blubbering from her), and the guy had been put in jail for 20 years. She was asked about her involvement in the guy's sentencing, and she said that she let the courts do their job. I'm fine with everything up until now. She then made a comment which essentially said 'It's not my job to decide what happens to him, the law's the law. You can't/shouldn't try to worm your way around or through it.' And she made it very clear that she was referring to law in general, that it didn't just apply to her case.
What on earth does she think the purpose of the law is? Law is law because it's supposed to help and protect people. If a law isn't doing that, or if you think it's being unfair, unjust, or uncritical about any given situation, then it's not doing its job and it should be fought. I know I'm way far left on this issue in that I almost think that law shouldn't exist, and people should just use their heads about situations where a higher council needs to intervene. I think maybe what my ideal is to have Common Law? (I'm not even sure what that is, but I think it might be what I'm talking about. I don't think people should be running around in anarchy.)
This lady purposefully didn't intervene and said that people shouldn't intervene in situations where one's been wronged, and that's just the opposite of the way I think things should be. Gah, why do people think that they always have to concede to a higher power? What, your parents weren't strict enough when you were a kid? (Don't read that I actually know psychology about that, I'm just giving a low-blow.)
I mean, the law's made by someone or some group, and there's no guarantee they've thought about your specific situation. Grrr, even the 'law' gave her the opportunity to intervene because it's been made to do so because most people aren't idiots who think that every situation is the same.
I hope that she just thought that the law did exactly what she wanted it to do, nothing more or less, to her rapist, and she's adopted that stance only out of sheer ignorance.
That said, and with all the whining I go, please don't be offended if you happen to carry a differing viewpoint than I do about stuff. I'd even like to debate stuff, but that tends to end with the other person pissed at me well before I've gotten myself fueled up enough to even give the benefit of being angry myself.
I think I should rename the title of my journal to something like "Complaining Vern". It seems suitable.
Yes, I'm going to complain about more things in this entry.
On The Current, on CBC radio (no, I'm too lazy to link anything) this morning, I listened for about a minute before turning it off because of what this one lady who was being interviewed had said. I'm not even sure what the premise of the interview was, but I think it was something along the lines of how punishment should work. This lady had been raped at some time in the past (no tears or blubbering from her), and the guy had been put in jail for 20 years. She was asked about her involvement in the guy's sentencing, and she said that she let the courts do their job. I'm fine with everything up until now. She then made a comment which essentially said 'It's not my job to decide what happens to him, the law's the law. You can't/shouldn't try to worm your way around or through it.' And she made it very clear that she was referring to law in general, that it didn't just apply to her case.
What on earth does she think the purpose of the law is? Law is law because it's supposed to help and protect people. If a law isn't doing that, or if you think it's being unfair, unjust, or uncritical about any given situation, then it's not doing its job and it should be fought. I know I'm way far left on this issue in that I almost think that law shouldn't exist, and people should just use their heads about situations where a higher council needs to intervene. I think maybe what my ideal is to have Common Law? (I'm not even sure what that is, but I think it might be what I'm talking about. I don't think people should be running around in anarchy.)
This lady purposefully didn't intervene and said that people shouldn't intervene in situations where one's been wronged, and that's just the opposite of the way I think things should be. Gah, why do people think that they always have to concede to a higher power? What, your parents weren't strict enough when you were a kid? (Don't read that I actually know psychology about that, I'm just giving a low-blow.)
I mean, the law's made by someone or some group, and there's no guarantee they've thought about your specific situation. Grrr, even the 'law' gave her the opportunity to intervene because it's been made to do so because most people aren't idiots who think that every situation is the same.
I hope that she just thought that the law did exactly what she wanted it to do, nothing more or less, to her rapist, and she's adopted that stance only out of sheer ignorance.
That said, and with all the whining I go, please don't be offended if you happen to carry a differing viewpoint than I do about stuff. I'd even like to debate stuff, but that tends to end with the other person pissed at me well before I've gotten myself fueled up enough to even give the benefit of being angry myself.
