On May 24, 2005, at 1:13 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yes -- once again there are exceptions which suggest that laws, which
can't be created in such a way as to take into account all
exceptions, can in enough circumstances cause sufficient suffering to
lead to the conclusion that it would be best to eliminate the law in
question rather than rewrite it.
Or, better still, not make the law in the first place.
That's what judges used to be for, until the feds started making them
toe some sort of line.
Heh heh. Is that really so new, though? The "toe the line" part I mean.
I haven't been actively conscious of Supreme Court and other nominees
for more than about a quarter century, and based on that I can't really
judge history's facts, of course. I would be very surprised, however,
to learn that this is a comparatively recent trend.
[Robert here]
I like to think the world is moving away from situations that allow
this kind of child abuse to occur. I'm probably wrong.
It's being forced under wraps, I think. That makes it *more*
dangerous and *more* toxic.
I think it used to be much further under wraps in midcentury than it
is now. Today's willingness to speak up about such things has helped
enormously.
Well, except in cases where false accusations are made and the innocent
are pilloried, or cases where -- if there's a risk a kid might talk --
murder is done to keep witnesses silent. The whole issue is just ugly
and ... well, horrible.
Though on reflection, yeah, it does seem like there's more willingness
to investigate, to prosecute, to attempt to address pain and heal
minds. That's definitely an improvement.
And it is these very thorny issues that I simply cannot accept are
reconcilable with something so facile as judicial fiat. A simple
definition of "human" does not exist, "human rights" are extremely
plastic terms of convenience -- nothing more -- and one man's murder
is another man's abortion of a child of incest.
Man's?!?!?!?!
Or woman's, yes. I'm kind of a stickler about some things. I know
English can be seen as inherently sexist in dealing with impersonal
pronouns, but that's the way the language is constructed. So if the
alternative is either to use a grammatically incorrect word ("their" or
the ghastly "hir" in place of "his", f'rinstance), or a tortuous
formulation that is inclusive but too wordy ("his/her"), I'll probably
go with the impersonal pronoun.
Surely you know I was paraphrasing the old saw "One man's meat..."
There is no way that any kind of law can ever be written to deal with
these kinds of issues.
There is, but it can't deal in absolutes and excluded middles.
Right -- I think that's what I was suggesting. It can't be inclusive,
it can't handle exceptions, and it would -- I think -- exacerbate
suffering. Not much of an argument in favor of trying to produce any
such law. :\
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
