Law & Justice: January 2005 Archives
It's hard to know whether or not to write about such things, but since the damage to New York's C line is making major headlines it can serve as an example. No one wants to give terrorists unfamiliar with our society any ideas of how to damage us, but the ease with which the subway was crippled should prompt us all to think of the weak points we see in our daily lives and what we can do to keep an eye on them.
A fire in a subway control room has put the C line out of service for up to five years and caused serious problems on the A line that will make the commute miserable for hundreds of thousands of subway riders, officials said yesterday.The unstaffed room containing 600 electrical devices called "relays" that are used to power signals and switches along a segment of the vital Eighth Avenue line were destroyed Sunday in the blaze.
Cops blamed a vagrant who set a shopping cart full of wood blocks ablaze six feet into the tracks at the Chambers Street station. Cops are searching for the derelict.
Why wasn't the relay station closed off? Even a cheap metal door could have stopped a shopping cart full of wood. Simple security enhancements can do a lot to deter criminals and to make crime more difficult. We should all be attentive to our surroundings and do what we can to protect our country and our infrastructure.
The idea that one is "innocent until proven guilty" beyond a "reasonable doubt" is a great standard for a legal system. I think it should be hard to justify using government power to take away a person's liberty. That said, there's no reason why we each need to use that same standard when making personal judgements.
For example, many people argued that it was wrong to declare Scott Peterson's guilt before his trial had even started. And sure, from a legal perspective we had to treat him as if he were innocent. However, anyone who paid attention to the news (unlike that idiot Amber Frey) had known for quite a while that Peterson murdered his wife. It was obvious. So obvious that he should have been executed without a trial? Of course not. But individuals can use whatever standards they want to judge each other, restricted only by their consciences.
Secondly, consider Michael Jackson. Sure, nothing has been proven in court, but it doesn't take a genius to interpret the evidence. He admits to sleeping in bed with strange children and says that he thinks it's normal. He surrounds himself with children all the time and separates them from their parents. When he gets accused of molestation (repeatedly) he pays out huge sums of money to make the charges go away. Should we throw him in jail without a trial? No. But it seems to me that there's more than enough evidence for someone to make a personal evaluation of the situation and rationally believe that he's a child molester.
Finally, consider OJ Simpson. He was actually acquitted of murder -- does that mean we all have a moral responsibility to act as if he's innocent? Duh, of course not. Everyone knows the guy did it, that's why he tries to maintain a low profile and doesn't get any more movie roles. A jury acquitted him, so he doesn't go to jail, but that doesn't prohibit us each from reaching our own conclusion on the matter and acting accordingly.
I was listening to Amber Frey this afternoon on Sean Hannity's radio show, and she's dreadfully boring. Even if I cared about Scott Peterson's life -- which I don't, now that he's doomed -- she had nothing insightful or interesting to say about it. Mr. Hannity asked reasonable questions, probing into Mr. Peterson's lies and deceptions, and Ms. Frey would give vague one-word responses that indicated she didn't comprehend the topic. She didn't offer any information and couldn't carry on a conversation worth a nickel. Total airhead. Not that I'm surprised; any woman who fell for Mr. Peterson's globe-trotting fantasies would have to be a moron. What is surprising is that Mr. Hannity is promoting her and her book so heavily.
The recent drama over aiming lasers at airplanes is an excellent example of how idiots self-select. Do you really need to know much about the law or terrorism to figure out that aiming lasers at other people is dangerous, not to mention annoying? Everyone has had a class or been to a movie with one of those morons who thinks laser pointers are the height of humor, and every one of us has wanted to drop-kick the comedian right in the nuts.
