As of late the little idea that "rules are made to be broken" has been creeping into my life... Just a few nights ago I was coming home and there were 2 Policemen across the street from my home, right outside of the very hip, rather loud, neighborhood beer garden. Their conversation was a bit strained -- yet quite funny:
NYPD 1 (classic hand on hip, one-leg-forward stance) to NYPD 2 (walking away, sort of to the side): "They are smoking weed. It's called a CRIME."
NYPD 2 (looking back over his shoulder, rolling eyes and throwing his hands to the side in a sort of swaggered manner): "Oh give me a break! Lets go."
I must admit at first I was a bit taken aback -- but if I had a voice I would have laughed out loud. Here is was, NY's very finest having a moment of reflection as to the nature of laws and bickering as to if it was ok to allow said laws to be broken. In the end NYPD 1 gave up his authoritarian viewpoint to his obviously over it colleague, NYPD 2.
And I was left to ponder the effects of such situations. Had NYPD 1 convinced NYPD 2 to go back to the bar and question / arrest said "criminal" what exactly would have been the repercussions? Lets assume that the said criminal would be arrested -- perhaps even jailed? Would that be in line with the function of the law against Marijuana?
Let's think about it: The demographic at this particular wetting hole is a mid 20's to mid 30's hipster crowd. Most are college-educated, law school students/professionals, social working Green Party folks, with a few neighborhood regulars as fill-ins. And Marijuana is a rather regular smell wafting from these folks. And they are getting it from someone -- and perhaps that someone isn't necessarily of the same demographic -- but at the same time they very well might just be of the same demographic. At any rate my question is "Does jailing or convicting this person for possession at this bar solve any sort of problem that this law is meant to solve?" "and does the ignoring of such a violation create more of a problem?" And the more I think about it the more my answer is No. And this is where I found myself surprisingly agreeing with NYPD 2, in this instance.
The fact is, while this particular issue of Marijuana can be linked to much graver problems of illegal drugs, in many instances it is not directly linked. There are of course many nicely controlled studies with copious amounts of strong research that shows the ill-effects of Marijuana use and the reason for its illegal status. And I must come out now: I fully agree with that research and do not think that Marijuana should be legal for "open use" (although I am also not so sure it shouldn't be legal for private home use.) There are also equally copious amounts of research that show the effects of Marijuana's illegal status as a contributor to our justice system, with our jails being plum full of "criminals" whose crime is related to hemp. And even more copious studies to show how much money this is costing me and you, the Taxpayer.
I am not so certain that NYPD1's quest to fight crime, in this instance, would have been so purposeful or beneficial to society -- and am tending to agree with NYPD 2's assertion of "Give me a Break!". In fact I think that the bigger truth is that NYPD 1 was just excited for an easy arrest. This, in a neighborhood that has a whole heck of a lot more interesting criminals roaming about openly. It seems that NYPD 2 was quite clear that this particular user of the Almighty Weed, who, while an easy target, is not the crux of the problem, but that perhaps the Guy in the Ice Cream Truck at Midnight (!) just might be a more worthy arrest. (hint. hint.)
Further, if the arrest had been made and this guy was convicted and jailed or, just fined heavily with his record smeared -- would this have been Just? Let's say that this conviction or smeared record prohibited him from work in the future or from some opportunity that he otherwise deserved, can anyone agree that "it doesn't matter -- he did something illegal?". Even though the illegal activity of this particular lady/gent may have in this case on a scale of 1-10, been a .5?
The entirety of the situation shows just how delicate the Administration of Justice is and that in fact, if one is not willing to go into the very messy grey-area of "in some cases yes, and in others no" it is very difficult for any Justice -- or better yet, Truth, to be found. We all naturally want an easy to decide, sure-fire method of escaping the tedious mental work of deciphering and deciding, of using our own combination of instincts and knowledge to come to a more truer decision for each case. And this is what oftentimes stagnates our very own growth, because we all become so tied to "The Rules" that we never think when it is appropriate or even beneficial, to break them.
And yet the mark of a very good Justice in any Court is one who can know the law -- not just in it's nitty-gritty detail, but also in its greater purpose, and by using their own intelligence, instincts and experience to interpret the law to each case before them, they can actually fulfill the Law -- rather than simply Administer it.
This week I'm breaking the Blogosphere Rule Of Consistency by writing very little over the last 5 days and by doing my Advice For World Happiness on Monday -- this bc I have been under the weather -- have had no voice and well, little energy to sit in front of a computer. No crucial harm done, right? Furthermore, there are a few other Rules I am well on my way to breaking as well, nothing illegal mind you, but certainly it has ruffled the feathers of those those who seek to be the Gatekeeper of those Rules for not really any good reason other than "that's the Rule". As such, I must admit I enjoy a sense of freedom and inspiration that I don't think I could otherwise feel. And for this I am very happy -- if not also a bit worried!
At any rate, I think some good ol' fashioned Rule Breaking is at hand.
No comments :
Post a Comment