The law, culture and society rarely seem to agree on moral or ethical judgments. The law is firmly rooted in a set of written rules that it prefers to pretend are absolutely black and white. This culture is constantly changing and evolving, but the law does not seem to change to fit it, as it should. Society likes to dictate the "norms" and is not willing to deviate from its own path for the betterment of the rest of the population. Terms such as "that's just not done," and "I don't want to get involved," seem to rule America's way of life.
Lately, many questions have been arising as to a person's moral obligation to others. Are you morally obligated to report a crime you witness? Are you morally obligated to report personal abuse if you witness it? Are you morally obligated to attempt to intervene, even when putting yourself at risk? What should your punishment be, if any, when you do not involve yourself in such situations or report these things? Should you be considered an accessory after the fact, and receive the same punishment as the actual criminal, or is moral censorship of your peers a sufficient punishment?
What is most disturbing about these questions is that our culture and our society, is supposedly based on moral obligation and the ability to recognize right and wrong. So, exactly where is the debate? What ever happened to being a champion for the defenseless and "doing the right thing?" If our society has fallen so low that these concepts are no longer understood or practiced, what does this say about the legal system and the human condition in today's society?
There should definitely be punishment in place for those who fail to do the right thing. However, the punishment should fit the crime and when you did not actually commit a crime yourself, censorship by the public and the legal system must be employed in some fashion. Just as putting dangerous criminals behind bars is a lesson to the public at large about what can happen when you break certain rules, the punishment for failure to act on your moral obligation should have consequences appropriate to that failure.
The law, in most cases, is not helpful with these dilemmas. It is comprised of rules that allow ridiculous technicalities to set violent criminals free, and in the same breath use circumstances to condemn someone without absolute proof that they are guilty of anything. If you meet the criteria of an accessory; it does not matter whether you actually committed a criminal act or not, you will still be treated the same as the criminal. There should be a place where a line is drawn and resolving these issues becomes entirely different matter from the way it is handled today. What do these failings say about our legal system? Reform is needed, it should be demanded. Society must be responsible for demanding these reforms. It is a right and your responsibility as a citizen.
Local film festivals in NYC - Visit Forumonlawcultureandsociety.org for more specific information about the most intriguing local film festivals in NYC.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق