I have a number of drafts saved in various stages of completion, and skimming through them is a weird experience. Little things are disconcerting, like finding a sentence proclaiming I liked the movie Detachment, and not having the faintest idea what that movie was about. Perhaps this is why I create so many lists. Perhaps I am afraid of not remembering what I like, and to some degree, not remembering who I am. Am I the sort of guy who likes that movie still? I have no idea? Googling the movie did bring back a faint recollection, but none of what I recalled was associated with a favorable reaction. So all I have to go on is my own word. I wouldn't lie to me, right?
The irony that the movie was titled Detachment is not lost on me.
Today I wondered how ridiculous it will be when people look back at small aspects of our system. My judge asks the jury if they smoke, so he can know whether or not to plan for breaks as needed. While the idea of accommodating smokers seemed a bit weird at first, it makes sense when you realize the goal is a fair trial, not correcting the behavior of the jury. If someone can't pay attention to the evidence as it is presented, a break is warranted. Then again, it's not like we go around asking people if they are addicted to other drugs and allow them to get their fix. Because at the heart of it, there is a chemical dependency there, an addiction that takes over. We draw the line in some pretty weird places, and while that part of the debate isn't new, when it comes to the priorities of the justice system, I suppose I'm wondering what happens when a juror can't do a good job because they are dependent on something we find less acceptable than lung cancer.
And on that light note, thanks for reading! (This is brief because I'm multitasking and actually writing something else as well.)
No comments:
Post a Comment