Like I've said, when I saw the Star Trek: Voyager episode Repentance, S7E3 January 2001 my views on criminal justice were evolving a lot. It's even ironic the timing of that episode. I thought it was silly that the starship Voyager was endorsing or allowing all of the horrible practices that were used on that planet. But of course the key moral argument there wasn't the legal practices on that planet but the Prime Directive, which didn't allow Voyager to interefere. They also brought up another interesting point on that episode I never thought of, till then I guess. Victims should never guide the legal system. We should always value their input, they have the right to make things like victim impact statements and their right always come before that of the accused and convicted. But they shouldn't guide the system or write the laws, because they will be guided mainly by their emotions. Oliver Wendell Holmes talked about this when he said hard cases make bad law. Hard cases are cases in current events or circumstances in one case that make everyone involved mad or emotional. And people demand a law be passed to address the problem immediately. Or if a law already exists, they demand it be made much harsher. I remember this in the 1980s. Mothers Against Drunk Driving claimed that the laws against drunk driving were too light. Because, they said, their children were the victims of that and they did think the perpetrator got a harsh enough sentence. So they campaigned to make the laws much harsher. Along with the requirement that if you get caught drunk driving, you lose you license for a year automatically, even if it is the first time. I thought even then that was a little harsh. Plus as they say, buzzed driving is drunk driving, legally. Meaning even if you are just a hair over the limit, you lose your license that way. And my law dictioary points out that judges rarely overturn laws. So whatever shortcut in legal reasoning was used in that case, is allowed to stand, and then even repeated in other cases. In conclusion we don't want to go off either deep end. No group, victim or criminal, has unlimited rights. And no one has the right to usurp the rights of another.
Modern science is helping the Tea Party to censor half of reality, while Donald Duck has declared war on Disney and the Muppets. Unless modern academia starts to protest the simple fact that they've made the dictionary taboo and a quarter of their students are so trusting they still claim the sun revolves around the earth, laws only apply to Kindgarten Drop-Outs who can't afford justice.
Like I said, the central issue in that Star Trek Voyager episode Repentance wasn't the legal practices on the planet Nygea but the prime directive, and specifically should Voyager interfere. (Neelix's reaction was interesting because he came from a world that was more like ours now, probably including the death penalty. But he said he thought it was outrageous that on the Nygean world the victims decide the punishment. They'd be ruled mainly by their emotions, which would be very strong and raw at that moment. And like I've said victims shouldn't do that or write the laws either.) All of the crew of Voyager thought that they should interfere, but they were powerless to do anything. All of them did, but always for different reasons. But you know, in international affairs this comes up often. Like how do you deal with the horrible human rights abuses of another country. Take Saudi Arabia. The approach of western European countries is sanctions and embargoes along with public condemnation. But the U.S., I just read, has more of a policy of balancing its concerns over human rights abuses there while also trying to maintain its strategic and economic interests, especially for regional security in that part of the world. This has led to critics charging there is really a gap between the U.S. government's stated commitment to human rights and the absence of severe consequences for those ongoing abuses. I saw the Star Trek Voyager episode Repentance in 2001 at a time when I was thinking about that topic. Criminal justice, punishment, the ethical dilemmas of that and how our society views those topics, and the others I just mentioned above. As tell people, I read online that some Star Trek fans thought that show went too far arguing the liberal point of view, some the conservative view. And I was disappointed by this too when I first saw it. But it really did a little of each, and it made a couple of very good points.
