A Dog's Eye: Taught by the court

I've appeared in courts of law four times in my life...so far. Each time I was in a different role, and at a different stage of my life. Only my most recent experience was without considerable anxiety. Many people I know have never been to court and in the normal course of events, most are unlikely to. It is not an experience to which anyone of sound mind aspires, nor is it normally considered positive.

In 1983 I was fifteen years old when I found myself in the Sutherland magistrates court charged with several offences relating to the theft of a motor vehicle. The vehicle in question was the same one in which the police found us pretending to sleep one night. I pleaded guilty to the charges, knowing I was guilty of numerous others for which I had not been called to account. Most seriously, I was guilty of breaking the trust of my parents. Having been sentenced to a two year good behaviour bond and fined, I accepted my punishment and determined to end my criminal endeavours.

In the late 1990s, I was at university. I returned to my car after a lecture to move it because I had been parked in a two hour parking zone. I did this not only because I did not want to be fined but also because I had been cured of 'criminal' behaviour. Unfortunately my effort to do the right thing resulted in a parking fine which I decided, as was my right, to contest in a court of law. At this appearance in the Redfern magistrates court, I was anxious despite believing myself to be in the right. Memories of my previous appearance many years earlier and the not often publicly declared warning about 'little guys' taking on the system in courts of law, played on my mind. The result on this occasion, following the ranger who issued the parking infringement denying that my car was in a different place when he booked me, was a reprimand from the magistrate. His Worship said that although I was not guilty of breaking the letter of the law, I was guilty of breaking the spirit of the law. I was ordered to pay the original fine plus court costs. I have never repeated the action which led to my second court appearance.

In my third court appearance, (2015) I was representing my fiance at the time in a custody case against her ex partner. I became something of a lay expert on family law, spending hours poring over evidence and legislation to put together a case which resulted in what I thought was a satisfactory outcome: a win. I regret doing that. Although my intentions were good, getting involved to that extent was another sign of the dysfunction of that relationship. The series of mediations, the long trail of emails, and the hearings themselves at the Family Court were intense, emotionally draining and resulted in me sometimes losing the better parts of myself inside the worst parts of myself. The battle to maintain my integrity was constant. That description fits my relationship with that person as well. God forbid, I should ever find myself again in such a situation. 

I've just returned from Brisbane where I travelled to appear in a trial at the District court as a character witness for the defendant; a friend and former colleague of mine. I agreed to help my friend without hesitation, and so it was with confidence that I presented my statement to a jury in the presence of a judge. The case lasted four days. My part lasted somewhere between five and ten minutes. I was one of four character witnesses, but equally important to what I said in court was my presence. My friend had this very heavy dark cloud hanging over his head for well over a year, having been charged with a crime he did not commit. I'm sure the fact we were physically present with him, helped not only his case, but also him personally. I had to return to work so I was not in court to hear the verdict, but our prayers were answered. My friend called me to tell me the outcome. He was so excited and relieved, I thought he might somehow jump through the phone. His main job now will be to forgive his accuser and move forward with his life. This will be very difficult. Very difficult.

In all of these cases, I have no problem with the decision of the courts. There was justice for all, and there were also lessons to be learned. This is not always the case. For me, I am thankful that my appearances in court have helped shape me for the better, and in the most recent case, helped a friend avoid the more serious and permanent consequences of injustice.

Illegal. Immoral or Both?

Apparently generous Commonwealth bank ATMs were dispensing more money than requested by customers earlier this week. The bank said people were deliberately overdrawing their accounts, and that this was possible because the ATM's were offline, and therefore not connected to the bank's database.For those collecting the bonus cash, it must have seemed like a miracle but banks don't give money away. It's not like Monopoly where a bank error in your favour can net you a cool $200. The beneficiaries of the surprise cash have been told to return the money. Fraud squad is involved, and advising people that keeping money which does not belong to them is a crime which may result in prosecution and a 10 year jail term. That seems a bit over the top, doesn't it? These people aren't criminals...or are they?

You can be fined for littering, but is it immoral? It's against the law to use a handheld mobile phone while you're driving, but it's okay to eat, drink, smoke, have a conversation, or listen to the radio - or even do all five things at once. Is talking on the phone while driving immoral? Is it even criminal?

The possession and/or use of heroin is a crime even though it is less harmful to the body than tobacco which is a legal product. Slander is illegal but it's not a crime to assassinate someone's character in a secret whisper. You can be fined for staying ten minutes too long in a parking space. It's illegal to exceed the speed limit but you can't be fined for overstepping the boundaries of truth in order to manipulate somebody, or their opinion of you. Telling lies is, in many instances, perfectly legal. It's not against the law to be greedy or selfish or to fornicate or to commit adultery, but it is illegal to cut down a tree on your own property without permission.

Consider these many examples and ask yourself the question: Is every illegal act also an immoral act? Or try this one: Should all immoral acts be illegal?

Honour Among Thieves

What was truly frightening about the Godfather, and the many gangster films which followed it, was the fact the mafia did not believe society's laws applied to them. Using extortion, intimidation, and extreme violence they said, 'we will do what we want to do.'

They were not a lawless group of people however. They merely adhered to their own laws and their own standards. They had their own morality regardless of its legality. The argument goes, just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. A whole book could be written on the immoral acts of history which were legal. Of course the judgement on what was immoral would be the author's point of view. Does that mean, therefore, that morals are only a matter of opinion? Who sets the standard?

All the social problems and crimes which occur in our world result from different standards; standards which do not measure up to the ultimate standard of goodness.

How many arguments, how many actions have been perpetrated by people believing their behaviour was okay or justified in the circumstances? In one family swearing and drunkenness is acceptable, in another it is not. Punching a man is okay if he throws the first punch. Working for cash to avoid tax is acceptable to many while others feel it is dishonest. These are examples of relative morality and relative morality is a conflict causing plague in society and in the world.

Surely the basis for society's morals must be an absolute standard. Surely it must be God's revelation of his Character and His will for us which is in the Bible. Even those who feel certain laws don't apply to them, like the mafia will be judged in the end by their Maker. Who can decide what is truly good apart from one who is perfect?

And Justice For All

I read today that an Islamic court in Malaysia will reconsider the sentence handed out to a mum for her heinous crime of drinking beer. Her punishment was to be six strokes of the rattan. According to the Minister for Women, Family and Community Development, the sentence is too harsh. No kidding. This story comes on the back of the case involving Sudanese woman Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein,who is facing forty lashes from a whip for wearing indecent clothing.She wore a pair of trousers in public.

At the other end of crazy, is the story of Portsmouth serial menace to society, David Moore, who has collected 103 driving offenses including nine counts of driving under the influence and 24 convictions for driving while banned. He was sentenced to just six months in jail because that's the maximum penalty available under the law.

Some people tell you that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. They say that morality is universal. Even allowing for the extreme nature of these cases, it doesn't require Einstein's intellect to figure out that something has gone wrong with human notions of decent behavior and justice. Rational people gasp in astonishment when they hear of this madness, but rational people made these laws and rational people imposed the sentences. Are we all mental?

Western laws are based on the Ten Commandments while Islamic Law is obviously based on the Quran. Very nice ideals are presented in these great books but perhaps they are too hard to attain, too much for mere mortals to achieve. Somewhere along the line, the theory of justice has been flushed down a toilet of relative morality. The practice of justice can be a truly terrible thing in the hands of fragile fallen humanity.

What punishment would you give to David Moore?
	Forty lashes from a whip
	Six strokes from a cane
	Six months in jail
	10 years in jail
Free polls from Pollhost.com