"One doesn't need to be so black/white about it.” So someone wrote in response to the recent posts on having a congruent philosophy. Whenever you hear words like that, you can tell exactly where the conversation is going.
Those are the words that people who live without a philosophy use to justify their beliefs. Unfortunately, philosophies don’t work that way, any more than you can be a little bit pregnant.
The writer in my email continued, “I would NOT be in favor of a mass murderer being set free to murder again, or a serial rapist getting off on a technicality to rape again...and in your heart of hearts, neither would you. What if that NEXT murder or rape was one of YOUR loved ones? You'd be furious or you'd be dishonest with your own emotions...take your pick (or you'd be as much of a monster as the murderer/rapist).”
And see there’s the rub…
You can’t have it both ways. It has to be black or white; there can be no gray. You can’t say you stand by the Bill of Rights, but also support convicting someone because the police broke into his house without a warrant, and obtained some illegal evidence. No matter how heinous the crime.
As a rational being with thought, you can have one of two choices:
Choice number one: You believe the criminal must go free, even if we know he is guilty. You understand that individual rights are not for only when they are convenient. You must stand by your laws and the philosophy they were based on, even when an injustice has occurred. Principles are not for only when they are convenient. They must be unyielding and absolute.
The rights which citizens of a nation are entitled to must be equal and applicable to all. That’s where the term “blind justice” came about. The rights cannot be disregarded because the government believes someone might be a criminal. If you allow even one exception, then you are on the road to a police state. And you never know when the next knock at the door will be at yours.
Power corrupts. And if you give a government powers of unwarranted search and seizure, you end up with regimes like Castro, Saddam Hussein, and Hitler.
Or choice number two: You say the criminal goes to prison anyway, because of “extenuating circumstances.”
“He’s an animal,” you could say. “This guy murdered an innocent 9-year-old girl. He doesn’t deserve any rights.”
But you can’t say that your belief is congruent with the Bill of Rights we have in the United States. Because you can’t take away his rights, without taking away everyone else’s.
Of course I would hate a criminal getting set free on a technicality. No need to be dishonest with my emotions. Of course I would be furious, upset, and anguished.
Yes, I would fear for my loved ones, and want the police to do everything in their power to ensure the killer doesn’t kill again. But only what is legal. If you allow the police or military to circumvent laws, then you end up with no laws.
There is no choice three here. Your philosophy must be congruent, or you don’t have one. You are simply responding to memes from the mass population. There is no Bill of Rights, unless it applies to everyone equally.
Think about that some, and next post I’ll give you my take on how that would play out in today’s world.
BTW, the new episode of Prosperity TV is up. Check it out for a peek into the First Class private suites on Emirates Airlines and their new $5 billion terminal in Dubai. Go to: http://www.youtube.com/randygage