Nota Bene 7

I trust you spent a happy Independence Day yesterday or the day before, or you will tomorrow or whenever we celebrate it. It's annoying to some people – and I am one of them – that remembrance of actual events is secondary to the desire to have long weekends. It's not our most pressing problem but a lot of people like me resent this trivialization of our heritage.

The questions that I raise today for your consideration are primarily ones that deal with the controversial issues, and society's reaction to them. They're part of the overflowing collection of topics which pique my interest and which, I hope, may bother you as well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Does the punishment fit the crime? – Most criminal defendants are convicted. They are only a small percentage of those accused. Many more take plea deals. Lawyers know this. That means they know that most of the people they are defending are guilty, or at least, likely to be convicted. While all are presumed innocent, lawyers know that most of their clients are trying to beat the system, and, for a price, they are helping them. The challenge is to convince the jury of what they probably don't believe themselves. It's a game for them – one at which they make money. To salve their consciences or to silence their critics the claim that everyone, even the guilty, deserve a good defense. That's part of the game. If the prosecution can't prove them guilty, they walk. Guilt and innocence are not the criteria, but only proof. Lawyers don't deal in right and wrong, only in preventing the jury from convicting. What constitutes professional ethics? To what degree should “technicalities” govern the delivery of justice?

What should I do? – Ethics are often decided by ethicists. Hospitals have ethicists and ethics committees; newspapers have ethicists (as well as advice columnists). Who is an ethicist? What are the criteria? Does anyone with strong convictions qualify? Should the title be limited to individuals with philosophy degrees? Or to the clergy? What makes the views of the philosophers any more valid than those of others? Are there absolutes? How are they determined and measured? Do ethics vary with society and culture?

Love Story – Lipogrammatic novels prove that there can be omissions of individual letters from text, which raises the question of the possibility of other omissions. In line with current trends, is it possible to write a gender-neutral novel, a love story, which lacks all pronouns and any but ambiguous names. We have already accepted gender neutrality in other works, as well as love stories and TV and movie depictions of love between those of different races and religions so a story of love that allows for any interpretation of participants seems to be the next step.

The lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods – How do we resolve situations in which there is a conflict of constitutional or other legal rights? What criteria should be used and who should decide? Should it be an issue reserved for judges or a matter decided by historical scholars who are knowledgeable in the views of the Founding Fathers? What part should voters play in the process? Similar questions involve “minority rights.” To what degree should the majority hold sway over the minority, and vice versa? Who decides?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So what do you think?