Get out of jail free cards
Article content
Do you ever notice the many ways we humans have of ducking the blame for our actions?
When the first blizzard swept across the prairies this year a reporter summed up the number of deaths directly caused by the snow on the highways. No, no, my friend, the snow didn't cause one death. Natural conditions are the result of orbital motion of the planet, the tilt of the earth's axis in relation to the imaginary elliptical plane traced out by the globe travelling around the sun, tidal forces between sun, moon and earth, the corliosis effect, and the fluttering of a Japanese butterfly's wings. No mind of a God or mother nature controls these actions. If there is no mind there cannot be any purpose, benevolent or punishing in what's happening. They just happen.
So what really caused those massive pile-ups of vehicles on the highways and byways? Human behaviour. People, especially early in the season, carry on as if it were still summer. If they drive fast in summer they will do it in winter until they get into trouble, maybe just a close call, maybe a totally wrecked vehicle, maybe they don't live through it.
I have to admit I did the same thing in my younger days, lucky to be here to write about it.
If drivers blame the weather they will keep on acting thoughtlessly. Not their fault the four-wheel drive didn't give a Batmobile capability.
What should they, we do? Stay home unless the trip is worth the risks.
News writers plow through their thesauri in search of words to describe storms. They choose words that imply attitude, picture the huffing Old Man Winter images produced by cartoonists. It's all very dramatic and poetic and pure flapdoodle. See above.
It's fine to use metaphorical language as long as we understand that's all it is. If we mistake it for reality we can throw the blame on the stupid storm, not stupid me.
Ability to dodge responsibility isn't just about weather. Courts have set precedent after precedent giving the power of common law to bad actors. Remember the man who was found not guilty of murder because he was sleepwalking, sleep driving actually, to get to his victim. Unless the verdict is overturned by a higher court, not only he gets a get out of jail free card, so does everyone thereafter who acts in the same way.
A charge in our canon must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. How can a judge or jury know whether a new defendant is modelling behaviour to fit the precedent or is in fact in a somnambulant state?
People who have been abused as children provide a lot of work for lawyers and psychologists in finding clients not responsible for what most of us see as criminal behaviour.
At our coffee bunch this week we considered the case of the youth who killed a number of people while driving in a drunken stupor and didn't show any signs of remorse. As I understand it, learned witnesses argued that rich families create this personality type. Accustomed to being able to afford legal counsellors who let them escape charges that you or I would end up in the slammer for. Their children therefore are not taught any sense of responsibility and so cannot be found guilty of intent.
Someone opined that the parents should be charged. "Somebody has to pay."
But being wealthy the parents will beat the rap. That's what they have always done and what shaped the attitude of the kids.
When not wealthy parents are deemed to be unfit to raise children it's common to put the kids in foster care. Could the wealthy be dealt with in the same way?
If this case becomes law, isn't the mayor of a certain large city part of a wealthy family? Will he be able to plead not guilty based on the precedent? It would be necessary to show that as the twig is bent, so grows the tree.