Good vs. Evil, a popular controversy.
While I often question the “evil” and lack understanding of their actions, I realize it is necessary to have evil in order to have the so-called “good”. For without “bad” actions we would have nothing to compare the actions of those “good-doers” to. We would simply all be the same, and who knows what our label would then be without the “good” vs. the “bad.”
There are occupations created in order to prevent the “evil,” policemen, lawyers, judges, our government (ha ha). It is their duty to protect their citizens and preserve honesty, and justice.
Justice. What is justice? Well, dictionary definition says that justice is the fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. But really, lets face it; do victims of crime ever get the justice they deserve? What exactly is just for a murderer? Who’s to decide?
After watching the movie Law Abiding Citizen I began to question the actions of those considered “good.” How could Jamie Fox’s character make an agreement with the guilty that allowed him to get off with a lesser punishment? Not to mention the fact that the criminal lied in his testimony and his partner in crime is the one who was sentenced to death. This man sentenced to death wasn’t innocent per say, but he was falsely accused for the crime at hand.
So how are we to trust lawyers when they make deals with criminals? Jamie Fox’s excuse was if he didn’t make the deal the man would have gotten off without any sentence. Whether this man is released after a few years in prison or isn’t sentenced at all, he’s still returning to society. Would a few years in jail really chance his character? Gerard Butler's character didn't think so--all he wanted is what was right. Knowing that his attorney fought for the right thing (which wasn't making deals with criminals).
What about those lawyers who defend the murderers? Although some do not choose their case but are assigned to those who cannot afford one, what about those lawyers who take on the challenge of defending those who have been charged with murder. I cannot help but question the morals of those who choose to defend those who are without a doubt, guilty of serious crimes. In some cases it boils down to insanity. Okay, I can surrender to reason of insanity, as long as it’s the truth and not some made up excuse for the crime at hand.
And what about punishment? The death penalty? Is that the proper punishment? It’s a bit hypocritical if you ask me. We’re fighting out against the actions of murderers, against killing, and yet, there are court systems that kill as a means of punishment. So we fix killing with killing? What?
Parenting is another area where lines become hazy. A little boy gets angry with his sister and pushes her down. Punishment: a spanking. It’s the same idea as the example with the death penalty. How can we teach our children not to push, shove, and hit, when we’re punishing them with spanking. Are we saying it’s okay to hit someone when they’re wrong? Finding a proper punishment is challenging. Different people are affected by different things.
I think the intentions behind “good’s” actions are intended to be noble. The “good” simply want to eliminate as much bad as possible. But I feel as though the means they use going about it can be questionable. I understand that options are limited, but I don’t always agree with what is done. It’s a difficult thought though, knowing that even the “good” perform “bad” things. It's inevitable I suppose, but then are they still good? Can we as "good" people just have moments of weaknesses? Because then can't the "bad" use the same argument? What does it become?
No comments:
Post a Comment