|
My laundry list of "visions" was merely a knee-jerk reaction to what I was reading here. I certainly hope none of these things come about, but the potential is certainly there.
All in all, what these laws imply is that the public is capable of making decisions that are normally within the realm of law enforcement. Ideally, it means the public is given responsibility beyond what is normally expected of them. It is a responsibility typically reserved for those who are both empowered and held accountable for enforcing laws and keeping the peace.
The problem I see is that this system is something that could easily go wrong, especially in the courts. There will be cases where one is being held accountable for manslaughter or murder charges for a situation in which he or she thought they were well within the law. What would have gone wrong, is that they misjudged the situation: they panicked, they were overwrought with emotion, etc., and they made a bad decision. People died, lives were ruined, and now someone who thought they were helping is going to jail.
While these things certainly happen even to those who work in police forces, to open these opportunities up to the public will allow for far more instances. I don't think the public is capable of adequately managing this kind of law.
A society where everyone is armed and instilled with the belief that they should use lethal force where they deem fit seems to me a Wild West form of justice. The only thing that comforts me is that everyone also seems to have video recording devices on them. At least there will be a chance for other forms of justice to have their chance.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
|