|
16 Oct 2007, 11:52 pm / Disappointed
And so here I am again writing a blog after so long. My last ones have been a tad melodramatic, anyway. I remember days when I wrote a blog and always left off with a moral question of some sort. Or a moral puzzle, or dilemma. Well, hopefully, this blog can join those ranks--and maybe this time around I won't delete my much older blogs. Moving on: I was in a discussion with Mors, earlier. You all know her, I'm sure. And it was about Justice, or lack thereof. Apparently: Three white kids hung nooses from a tree at their school so that a group of black kids wouldn't sit there. The white kids were suspended, but the black kids decided to jump one of them. And now there is outrage over those kids getting charged. I'm annoyed because no one seems to care that the kids were stupid and deserve punishment. Assault and battering is not too big a punishment. Attempted murder is a little extreme, but it was six on one. They justgot into a heated debate. But there are rallies talking about what good kids they are. That's ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, they and the three white kids are little heathens. The "[Quote]" command doesn't work, so it will have to be italicized--bear with me. I can understand why she's annoyed, can't you? Six kids beat up one kid because the one kid offended them? And now that the six kids are to be punished, the community is at an uproar? And why--because the kid the was beaten was a part of the trio who put up a set of nooses from a tree where the six black kids hung out? These are two, separate incidences. The three kids putting the nooses on the tree--a racist action--were already punished. That part was done. They were punished. End of story. I cannot emphasize that enough. Then the six kids took it to themselves to further punish one of the kids? I understand that in the mentality of some people it's perfectly logical to assault someone who's insulted you--even if they didn't insult you physically. This action is vindictive. These six kids made themselves vigilantes. Taking the law into their own hands, per se, to punish the offenders. But that is not justice. That is selfishness. For further reference, the three white kids will from here on be referred to as Group A, and the six black kids will be referred to as Group B. Group A has already been punished--whether or not their punishment was adequate is not in question. It is unlawful for anyone to be punished more than once for the same crime; a murderer cannot be convicted of the same murder twice--either he's convicted once, or he's not. Period. *Note: Appeals are a different story--they are not tried or punished for the same crime twice, but rather trying to convince the court to change the prior ruling. What Group B did was complete, senseless violence. What's worse? It's self-righteous violence. Look at it this way. Say a family member of yours is murdered. The murderer is caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. You get yourself into the prison where he's being held, and you kill him--for revenge. Well, what happens? You will not only be punished for breaking into a Government Facility, but you will also be punished for homicide. Is it moral? No. Is it Justice? In truth, yes. He may have been sentenced to death but that doesn't mean you can take the law into your own hands and carry out the sentence. Now, in all retrospect the authorities can choose not to pursue a case against you, but it's unlikely. You see, it's still murder. Until that man either dies by carrying out the sentence, or he dies of a natural cause, if he is killed, it will always be homicide. You deprived them of the chance to live. Justice is not synonymous with vendetta. Just because this murderer killed deprived your relative his chance to live, doesn't mean you can deprive the murderer his chance to live after he's been caught. There are many more complications about that, but I'll get to those some other time. Back to the subject at hand. Group B was unjust with their beating of one of the kids in Group A. Now, Group B is going to be punished. The community is at an uproar because all they see is that Group B was defending itself from gross racism. What they don't see is that Group B was not defending itself, but rather being on the offensive. They explicitly disregard the fact that Group A has been punished by the school, and further punishment (should any be required) is up to the criminal enforcement authorities. So, we have a riotous mob, a controversial case of White-Man Vs. Black-Man, and an assault and battery case against one. Does anyone remember Rodney King? I say Group B should be punished for, at the very least, assault. And they should be punished to the fullest extent of their crime. Motive is all the difference here, and Group clearly wanted to do harm to this kid. Perhaps, they may even have wanted to kill him--in which case, it would be attempted murder, and an even bigger case. What's the big fuss? When it goes to court, it's the predominantly white protesters against the predominantly black protesters. If found guilty, the latter will definitely cause a riot. If found not guilty, the former will. So here's my question: Group A has already been punished for their actions. That is out of the case. We have only one case to look at: Group B assaulting a member of Group A. What is a fair ruling? Should Group B be found guilty of assault? Or should they be not guilty, as victims of racism? Be aware, that Group A, as far as you and I both know from this passage, did not physically attack Group B. What they did was a misdemeanor--equivalent to drawing a swastika on a wall, or street sign in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. Does an offense of symbol, not physical action, warrant a physical assault? Would you face a bigger riot to pursue justice by convicting Group B of, at least, Assault and Battery; or would you avoid the bigger riot by acquitting them?
|
