Justice and Honor 2

Anyone searching for metaphors on how the courts deliver a decision, not justice, need go no further than the Casey Anthony case.

One may offer countless rationalizations: The jury wanted to go home, there was a reasonable doubt as there was no witness, there was no definitive motive, the television crime programs have raised the bar for evidence, people are uncomfortable with the death penalty. But this case was a battle between circumstantial evidence and innuendo. The family itself has been destroyed by the women's defense. Sexual abuse, conspiracy in an accidental death, perjury have been lightly raised as compliment to the heavy prosecution circumstantial suggestions.

The essence here is that this is a combat for victory, not truth, and the major weapon is uncertainty. The minor benefit is entertainment. Strangely, this culture is remarkably certain about a lot of difficult questions--global warming, WMDs, how to raise children, the effect of deficit spending--but when faced with a staggering imbalance of evidence, it defers.

Perhaps later, Casey and O.J. will meet and search for the two perpetrators together. A reality series may develop. Love may bloom.

Justice and Honor

A man is in line at a nightclub when is and his party are approached by a drunk. The drunk blathers obscenities and, when ignored, sucker punches the man from behind. The man turns on him and the drunk retreats to a nearby policeman and claims he was attacked by the man in line.

A man is walking through a large crowd with small group, one a voluptuous woman. Pushing their way through the crowd towards them is a group of young men. As the two groups merge a moment, one young man grabs the girl's breasts and then the two groups separate in the crowd.

A man is returning from the night shift and is stopped at a red light at about eleven o'clock when he is rear-ended. He get out and inspects the damage. His car is scratched but the car that hit him has serious grill damage. The other driver gets out of the car full of apologies and is clearly drunk. He says the accident was his fault and is terrified if the event is reported he will be arrested. He promises to have the car fixed if only the man will keep the event private and not call the police. The man feels sorry for the drunk and agrees. They exchange phone numbers and he goes home. The next morning he is awakened by a state trooper who says he is being arrested for backing into a man's car at a red light and fleeing the scene.

There are probably a number of problems in society that would be solved by the re- institution of dueling but not many because, as as most feudal societies recognized, most people will not play by the rules. (In most feudal societies, the very possession of weapons was illegal for the lower class.) In daily intercourse one is tempted to look for honor and justice but any such search in the examples above would be dangerous and perhaps fatal. There is no protection for the average man from someone who will not play by the rules, especially if one has much to lose and one has little. The only sane position is self-defense: Call a cop, report the event, state your position for the record and end it.

Justice and honor are pursuits, ideals, which guide peoples' lives. They are not endpoints. They are learned and taught in time, not in a moment, and only to the willing. And they can not be enforced. Even the courts know the truth when they say, "In court, you don't get justice, you get a decision."

Carter vs. Salmela

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf4BoCP26rM&feature=player_embedded

This hockey moment raises interesting questions about hockey and the world. I have watched this film over and over and think the hit was legal, within the rules of the game. This brings us to the next question: Is legality enough? I think what the bankers, loan officers and ratings managers did over the last years was legal as well. But is it enough?
It is impossible, of course, to legislate a spirit of a game; that is where sportsmanship starts and that can be nebulous and dangerous. So, too, a culture; that area is morality. But there must be some consideration for analysis of behavior outside of the strictly legal. Legality should be the floor of behavior, not its ceiling. I have no good answer for that unwritten area. Make better people? After all, the hockey culture used to enforce "sportsmanship" with fists. And Salmela, unconscious before he hit the ice and with retrograde amnesia, made so little fuss he did not go to a hospital (where a traumatic unconscious/amnesia diagnosis might have put in in an ICU bed for a night). That type of culture is very forgiving.
Yet the hit was vicious, delivered against a player after the play was officially over by a man who knew it was unexpected and dangerous. Here the legality has no social function other than protect the perpetrator who should, in a civilized society, be last in the queue for protection.
Such a system, as the sage said of prostitution, is "technically perfect".