It is understood that every male member of our society can take a pee anywhere he pleases. Period. On the wall of any given house, under that giant tree where people come and sit for picnic perhaps, right next to the footpath or whatever. Anyone who’s property is being urinated upon, likewise, has the ‘right’ to try to stop this natural act from taking place – OR if you are late – find the urinator’s place and watermark his wall, perhaps with a Z like Zorro or something, in revenge. But what happens when someone of authority, say, your city nazim, comes to stop you?
‘You can’t pee here, it’s the law.” says the Nazim.
“But he started it!”
“Due process, my dear semaritan, And besides, I caught you, not him.”
“What about justice and fair play?”
“Ok, we will arrange for someone to piss on his wall, OK?”
“Hmm. Ok, yeah, that will do.”
“Any chance of you forgiving him? Or taking some sort of compensation from him?”
“No, that wall really tied the house together!”
“Ok, ok, the court will decide the matter.”
The court collects the evidence. In your favor, the judgement is passed.
That’s fair play. That’s justice.
Now you are satisfied. Because of that certain peace of mind that only revenge can deliver, you can sleep at night. And it is through due process, which you really don’t care about, but understand to be better on a ‘collective level’, yeah whatever. But his wall will be watermarked as well, so you chill.
But later, someone commutes his sentence. No one will be pissing on his wall. Why? Because your city law gives your nazim the power to do that. Practically, to decide in this specific peeing matter, to either reduce the ‘punishment’ or completely withdraw it. Why do that? Why give someone else the power to override justice? You are the one who has been ‘annoyed’, so you should have the right, facilitated by your government, to either (a) annoy the annoyer in the same way you were treated – revenge! (b) completely forgive, or (c) to settle for some sort of reasonable compensation. But where does ANYONE else figure in all of this?
President commutes the death sentence of a proven murderer, exercising his constitutional right. Nowhere is it mentioned about the family of the long-dead victim, no body seems to care. And it is ‘presented’ as a gift to the soon-to-visit Blair (WitchProject), for the murderer has British citizenship. All nice, all nice. See, how ‘understanding’ we are? See how compassionate? We don’t want to kill people, no nooo. So what if justice gets a back seat, way, way back? It is this treatment of justice that conjured up images of our constitution pissing on justice itself, that lead me to write with respect to a urinator’s analogy. Or maybe I’ve been drinking too much water.