30/12/2017 at 2:34 pm #73977
Johnvic, thank you for a most interesting post.
I recognise the strength of feeling coming through your words.
In a sense, I can see you speaking to us.
But I do disagree with some of what you say. ^_^
I see laws as guidelines, a framework used to decide on the best way to deal with a problem.
Using the same guidelines for all makes it fair for all.
I do agree that judges are human, and can view offences and offenders differently.
But not all that differently.
I am certain the judges are not there making it easy for wrong-doers.
They are applying the law as it stands, the same as you would do if you were in their shoes.
And I think the following are also true:
The government we elect to look after the public interest cannot be perfect.
They cannot solve all problems, and make life totally predictable for us.
They cannot simply pass laws and make all our troubles go away.
Another thing too: there are some things we cannot guard against.
We are fallible, and sooner or later we will make mistakes.
We will stub a toe perhaps, or knock something over so it falls and breaks.
Beware if it is great aunt Matilda’s favourite vase.
Then you will be in trouble!
We know things can happen, even though we try hard for them not to.
So yes, drivers know that colliding with another car is possible. Death and injury can result.
It is not all that rare for that to happen.
Redesign of the transport system might help, but passing more laws won’t stop it.
We are fallible, we are human.
Aircraft do fall from the sky, with consequent loss of life.
With extremely rare exception, the pilots don’t want that to happen.
Accidents are always possible, however hard we try to avoid them.
We live with that knowledge. That is life. Full of risk. Small risk, but there all the time.
Knowledge has given us great advantage.
We have the opportunity to be much better and more progressive with what we do.
Or we have the opportunity to be ‘better at being bad’.
We are all driven by instinct. In most of the animal world that is enough.
By some quirk of circumstance, we developed imagination, and the ability to reason.
Over time, people in some places, notably the colder places I think, had to use vigorous reasoning to direct their instincts and skills in order to survive. Their mental processes adapted accordingly.
In some other places, this deep thinking was not quite so necessary.
So people developed in different ways, with a different approach to life, depending on where they lived.
So now we have a mixture of many different thought patterns in our communities.
Not all of them are able to exercise the necessary restraint to adapt to the kind of life that has grown up around us.
They run more on their instincts, using what reason they have to enhance those basic instincts rather than control them.
There are many like that in the community. They use their instincts for basic survival.
In a sense, they treat the world around them as a jungle.
The ‘worst of them’ take what they can, where they can, and don’t mind who suffers. They have little conscience about it.
They deviate from what we would consider normal or desirable behaviour.
Passing a thousand more laws today won’t change that.
Sending the ‘storm troops’ out to ‘get stuck in to them’ today won’t change much in the future either.
So those who make laws and those who administer them have a dilemma.
I think they are doing the best they can to cope with it. I don’t envy them, having to do what they must do.
I say again, we simply cannot afford to ‘lock up’ all and sundry: the financial burden would be too great.
I mentioned in another post somewhere that I thought in the future we might live in ‘gated’ communities.
Instead of separating the ‘baddies’ from us, we might separate ourselves from them.
I think that would be more financially viable.
We already do in one sense. We lock ourselves up in our houses a lot of the time. Especially during the night.
We make ourselves safe from those who might harm us.
So it is not all that much of a stretch for our imagination to visualise large groups of people banding together.
Then, any with divergent views and behaviour are contained in a smaller area, and much easier to find and deal with.
All we need then do is to put them outside the community.
We would be back to living in small ‘tribal’ groups. Rather like a small enclosed town.
Just a thought. I doubt it will happen like that.
Another ‘agreeing’ I have with you is:-
When there is a sudden increase of misconduct in the community, which leads to a great deal of alarm, we can consider that an emergency situation.
Emergency situations call for emergency measures, albeit temporary ones.
But please let us not go overboard in pursuit of ‘justice’, and become savage and unthinking.
We mustn’t treat our surroundings as a jungle!
As always, ‘steady as she goes’.
Johnvic, I have tried to address the points you raised indirectly, without listing them one by one.
The above responses are ideas of mine only.
I offer them for your consideration.
I don’t offer any assurance that they are correct.
I am trying to contribute to a healthy conversation in a constructive way.
Thank you for reading my words.30/12/2017 at 4:36 pm #73978
It occurs to me that too much emphasis on the ‘mechanics’ of the way we run our society might be counter-productive.
We need to strike a balance.
We are neglecting the beauty and wonder that exists in so many ways around us?
I am saying here that we could usefully talk of other things.
My grandmother had a technique she used to change a subject.
She would say, ‘let us talk about flowers now’.
So I am suggesting that someone with knowledge, and I am sure there are many, open a ‘topic’ about gardening.
All I can grow are trees, so all other things are beyond my ken.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.