explain to me human nature
imagine this. person A and person B were both caught for shoplifting by the store detective. person A stole one $50 item. person B stole two $50 items. in addition, the store detective finds out that person B has overstayed his tourist visa. yet, he lets person B go free. you see, person B and him used to go to the same class together in a different country. they are friends. person A, however, has no such luck. he is handed over to the police.
now the searing unfairness of such a situation infuriates me. i'd have thought that if the store detective decided to do his good deed of the day, maybe he should consider doing two good deeds - after all person A did not commit a big a crime as person B. if he chooses to nab person A then, well he should nab person B too, because he nabs person A for his crime (not because person A isn't his friend).
so reasoning this out doesn't work. now let's appeal to the emotions. the store detective is being a good friend by letting his friend go off, his friend is sensible enough not to commit the same mistake again, so it's deterrance without punishment. of course, he needs to be responsible and fulfil his job requirements (why now he thinks of it!) and so he nabs person A. in light of what he's done before, however, the fact that he can now hand person A over to the police shows somehow his spitefulness. i mean, aside from shoplifting and not being his friend (misfortune of all misfortunes!) what other crime has person A committed?
how to reconcile this?
of course, if we go by the letter of the law then the outcome for person A will be the same, whether or not he was caught by this store detective or the other store detective who is friends with neither person A nor B. however, the fact that the outcome for person B is so different because of his luck - really it's nothing else is it - despite committing a worse offence just makes me feel so indignant.
don't tell me it's a fact of life that we have to accept. what do you call this? corruption? no money passed hands. what is this called then? have we no name for this? compassion? that's bull.
someone explain this to me.
now the searing unfairness of such a situation infuriates me. i'd have thought that if the store detective decided to do his good deed of the day, maybe he should consider doing two good deeds - after all person A did not commit a big a crime as person B. if he chooses to nab person A then, well he should nab person B too, because he nabs person A for his crime (not because person A isn't his friend).
so reasoning this out doesn't work. now let's appeal to the emotions. the store detective is being a good friend by letting his friend go off, his friend is sensible enough not to commit the same mistake again, so it's deterrance without punishment. of course, he needs to be responsible and fulfil his job requirements (why now he thinks of it!) and so he nabs person A. in light of what he's done before, however, the fact that he can now hand person A over to the police shows somehow his spitefulness. i mean, aside from shoplifting and not being his friend (misfortune of all misfortunes!) what other crime has person A committed?
how to reconcile this?
of course, if we go by the letter of the law then the outcome for person A will be the same, whether or not he was caught by this store detective or the other store detective who is friends with neither person A nor B. however, the fact that the outcome for person B is so different because of his luck - really it's nothing else is it - despite committing a worse offence just makes me feel so indignant.
don't tell me it's a fact of life that we have to accept. what do you call this? corruption? no money passed hands. what is this called then? have we no name for this? compassion? that's bull.
someone explain this to me.
posted by colours at
8:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home