Saturday, September 1, 2012

Moral High Ground when combined with Incorrect

There are many in the world that believe choosing the path of highest moral stance is valid by default; that actions aligning with the purest form of (for example) pacifism, justice, tolerance and honesty are never wrong. That a life lived committing no sin is a good one.

I say this is entirely wrong, and while anyone can lead whatever life they want, in the public sphere when an example of reaching for higher moral ground has resulted in harm or waste then someone should pay in way that subtracts, weakens and shortens their tenure in this world.

My words are all abstract so far, so here is an example.

There are many who believe in leniency for criminals, sometimes believing that society or "the system" are to blame, or believe if we jail one innocent person our society is guilty of some higher crime.

I believe when the courts decide to allow someone on the street after police have arrested them, and prosecutors have made a case for their guilt, and that subject then commits a significant violent crime; then the jurisdiction associated with that court should be sued and forced to pay a figure high enough to have an effect on that community's ability to function. For reference I give this story of a man who has murdered and hurt people since he was a teen, yet the courts erred towards leniency in all the cases against him. The legal society of this man's community chose to avoid the stigma of putting a teenage boy in prison for life. Now several people are dead. We as a society tend to move on, assigning the monster label to this killer but holding in high regard the system that treated a teen as a child rather than as a killer. I say the monster is the system that knew of his violent tendencies, but chose to be kind. That kindness needs to be punished in a way the weakens the entire entity practicing the kindness.

No comments: