Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, December 17, 1994 TAG: 9412220076
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOHN M. GARVIN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
They sentenced him to four months in prison. And over there, when they say four months, they mean four months and they don't mean anything else. He was sentenced to a caning and a caning he got. You do the crime, you do the time. This used to be, but no longer is, an American sentiment.
This young fellow might commit more vandalism, but I doubt he'll do it in Singapore. And maybe there's a lesson there: maybe I can't rehabilitate you, but I can make it costly for you to misbehave.
And yet Singapore is a very rigid society, by our standards at least. If we want that degree of law enforcement, might we also have to agree to ``big brother?'' As attractive as it may seem to have such a no-nonsense approach to crime, are we willing to sacrifice other liberties? Hmmm.
Presently, American jurisprudence seems to be derailed; a social version of :wq! :wq! ready, fire, aim; all too often a pulpit for social reform whose sermons demonstrate a focused perseverance in libertarian philosophy which blinds us to consequences. This is the civic equivalent of those who mistake prayers for performance. The surgery was flawless, but the patient died.
Sidney J. Harris: ``We continue to moralize the immoral, rationalize the unreasonable, reconcile the irreconcilable. We continue to be narrow-minded and envious, all the while seeking to avoid the consequences of being so.''
Yeah, I know, he was talking about someone else. Not us. Never us.
Are there no reasonable limits to social toleration? Limits upon which we may reach consensual agreement?
George Will: ``But self-government presupposes certain character traits, including moderation, reasonableness, discipline, responsibility and other attributes of mind.''
And again Will: ``Government exists not merely to serve individuals' immediate preferences (Eeek! An anti-libertarian sentiment! Quick, everybody grab a crucifix! Pass out the garlic!) but to achieve collective purposes for an ongoing nation. Government has a duty to look far down the road and consider the interests of citizens yet unborn.''
Consequences. The man asks us to please look at the consequences of our zeal for individual liberties.
It's probably reasonable to assume that nothing much changes through the ages. I'm sure this isn't the first time that the law was felt to suffer widespread perversion. Will Durant speaks of civilizations past where guilt "was given the benefit of every doubt, except when a substantial bribe argued for innocence." And Durant also told us that in the cycles of history, excessive freedom is followed by rampant individualism ("Hooray for me; forget everyone else") which is followed by totalitarianism.
But he was speaking of others. Not us. Never us.
However, this is our time and our civilization. And therefore, our problem.
There are ``laws'' that arise within the hearts of human beings. That murder, rape, assault and theft are wrong should come as a shock to no one. Written law exists to impartially deal with those who choose to ignore what they know to be true. Now, however, we seem intent on weighing alibis, not offenses.
In my own thinking, it's the purpose of the law - not the theoretical, but the real, daily purpose of the law - to impose order; for "border is the mother of civilization and liberty."
But there's no order; this is a failed pledge; a barren social promise. Punishment, as presently prescribed, is no deterrent. Please note, I didn't say cure, rehabilitation or answer. I said "deterrent."
A person who is lost makes a poor guide. Nevertheless, these days the rudder is held by people who, looking neither right nor left, damp-eyed with the cause of diffusive freedoms, steer us steadily into the storm (the sale of handguns, martial arts instruction, and burglar systems has never been so high).
"Murder in the streets; a small price to pay for freedom," placidly nod the liberty-minded from the safety of their armchairs, resolutely immune to doubt.
Once reconciled to law, we now seem to be on a collision course between rights and restraint. Now we have reasoning without reason.
And that leads me to what concerns me most: me. My patience withers in the heat of fear and disorder. I've noticed of myself that, although ordinarily a charitable man, I'm coming to a point where I no longer care if prisons are overcrowded. So build more! And that worries me.
I'm far more tolerant and flexible when my own and my loved ones' safety hangs not in the balance. Safety first; philosophy second.
I'm worried about what I'm becoming.
John M. Garvin of Roanoke is a physician at Lewis-Gale Hospital.
by CNB