Justice and Rights & Duties

In the Nether countries, when one studies 'Law', one studies 'Rights' (Rechten). It is quite instinctive to the Dutch and Germans (Spanish: Derecha) to confuse rights with laws. In reality this may be done only when all laws are identical with-, are only mere descriptions of-, the fundamental rights & duties of man (of all man). This seldom is so, nay, rather never. In order to be in concord with the rights & duties of man, a law must be applicable to ALL earth citizens, should be independent of time, must not be stupid, and may not be based on revenge, a man-un-worthy principle. Of course, all laws today (1985), still being made by illegal governments, governments of so-called sovereign states, they are based on this illegality. Be it remembered that in Nazi Germany, the 'Rechtswissenschaften' (science of rights) was entirely legal and studied, although it had nothing to do with RIGHTS. Similarly was the Nuremberg Trial, as Goering maintained, legal only because of the victors being in power, but indeed, the rights of man were the topic. While it seems very necessary to have local governing (i.e. not-mondial), in order to rule over local, incidental matters, it is clear that it cannot, and must not be able to rule on subjects like industry, energy, forests, housing, building, water, food, etc. that of necessity are of mondial consequence (74). It is needless to say that any form of world-government, must be based upon a strict basis of mondial ethics, on justice for all, on the principles of 'rights and duties' for every citizen. As it is today such justice is totally absent, through lack of this basic ethics. Due to the drive for behaviour being 'applause', stupidity has lodged firmly in the sphere of law too. Indeed, a judge, as well as a law-maker, does his work not because justice comes in the first place, but because of his need for applause. In order to understand this fully, the reader simply must study the first six pages of Spencer's Essay on Education. Countless stupidities, now, are the result. True, in some countries there is a jury-system. It almost resembles a 'Lottocracy'. But in praxis, it shows the effects of a group, as group, of the reward of deciding fast so as to get home, the influence of (religious) superstition (starting with the very oath), of a smart police- or law officer, a natural authority over all citizens (jury members), who is often vote-dependent, and who 'wants' the man guilty, his theory thus confirmed, of the impression that a witness or accused makes, the newspaper headlines, the films they ever saw in their lives, etc. Top stupidity, of course, is the command that the jury members should forget, or not take into account, some irrelevant or damaging facts or questions to which the defence protests. An artificial amnesia, only possible with prime hypnotic techniques. Unfortunately, the members of the jury are just as stupid as the whole population of which they are a 'random-, representative sample'. They turn about (or a blind eye) precisely as fast as the U. S. consensus from one day before, to one day after, Pearl Harbour. They are not assisted (personally) by all experts thinkable that they desire, but have to pick up relevancies and facts in the courtroom, a theater ruled by rituals, superstition, en fin ... by Epictetus' appearances. When they have to deliberate over a decision, IN ONE CHAMBER, the leader principle and barter, parties and opposition parties, with the whole scala of contempt, pliability, begging, applause, stubborn clinging to 'what mother used to say', is in operation. When they call in an expert, he is likely to be applause driven, a god-like scientist with nothing human in common with them. The system is only one of the judicial stupidities. Then, there is the stupidity of 'jurisprudence' for instance. It means that the ruling of some judge, some decades ago, in some case, becomes an 'argument' in a ruling of a later judge in a different case. As if two cases could ever be remotely alike! A child knows that a judge should judge a case solely as this particular case, not as some alternative form of another case in the past. The judge thus, IS 'making' the laws instead of simply testing behaviour against them. There is the proverbial resistance against, what is called: 'the taking of the law in one's own hands'. A professional jealousy. When there is no law enforcing officer immediately at hand, in a direct crisis situation, we know from far before Cicero, the man has to see about his own safety himself. With a burglar in your house, you are in direct life-danger. Your life then, is far more valuable for society, as law-abiding citizen, than the criminal. A fundamental right to defend yourself, and your property, as was recognized in ancient times, not only is a right, but a DUTY. If you can manage that without killing the intruder ... good. But it should not involve the tiniest of risks. Yet, this, nowadays, is strictly forbidden in most countries that have a judicature out of fairy-tale books. A thousand lives of criminals are not worth the life of ONE single upright citizen, a million not the life of one integer policeman. The good citizen thus, is compelled to speak and act, to seem to agree with this ridiculous laws, but in the meantime, he should prepare to defend the safety of self, kith 'n kin. A stupid law simply 'must' be broken by the good citizen, until a world government has eradicated all this nonsense. There is also the stupid hang to a binary approach. True, all ideation is fundamentally built on pairs, binaries, but our life has reached such complexity that a more elaborate system than the binary code is necessary. Even our math's and geometriy, our calendar and clocks cannot be binary. In some countries, now, the defendant has to plead: guilty / not guilty. There is no scope here to answer it as: 'true, I performed the act, yet the law is stupid, therefore I feel no guilt at all'. The choice guilty/not guilty contains the statement that one agrees with the law or its interpretation as being just. There is the ridiculous demand too, to answer a question by yes/no. The obvious question: 'Your honour, do you still beat your wife?' shows that questions, because they contain statements, cannot be answered as usual in a binary way (75). Perhaps the most stupid case that one can read in the papers, is that of a criminal who goes untried (the report said that the judges had not taken involvement with the case itself) on the grounds that the evidence had been come by through illegal, unauthorized means. In other words, the factual act is no longer criminal, when we have looked, observed, investigated it in the wrong way. The same child would decide that the act remains the act, but that the investigator should be 'judged' as well upon having been at fault. This brings us to the absurdity of 'a higher appeal'. A lower (!) court had ruled (condemned), and in the appeal the case was not even looked into. Only the fact that the evidence was unlawfully gathered. What nonsense is the appeal to a higher court really! Is the later one better? In that case, the first one apparently was not adequate. Are we not applying the very best we have, in so serious a business as justice? Besides, when proper justice has been done, all other courts' rulings should be, of necessity, exactly alike and in accordance with the ruling of the first. Otherwise, the justice would be comparable with the throwing up of a coin. We would know roughly what can be expected, but not the main fact. The only rational case for a higher court would and could solely be the judging of judges themselves, judges suspected of in-justice, of having erred in their job.

The law is the most dangerous thing in this country. It is hundreds of years old. It hasn't an idea. Wells, The World Set Free.

There is the absurd resistance against hypno-investigation (and hypno-restoration (76) ). The evidence gained by hypnodynamic (is idea-dynamic) means is not regarded as solid. Why should it be less truthful than a testimony without it? What is the difference anyway between the usual rhetoric, the oratory of counselors, and hypnotic induction? What sort of trances are there in witnesses, accused, experts, counselors and judges through the stress of being in court? These things, properly known to hypno-dynamic experts, should be known to those who use it, and judge over it, as well. Have the law-practitioners the remotest ideas about ideation, about ideas as testimonies, of opinions, of hypnodynamically invoked ideas, of hypnology? Then how can they 'judge'? Then, true, a testimony can be false, but when through hypno-dynamic means, the murder weapon can be found, or the body of the victim, the car number might be retrieved on which blood traces or dents may be identified, are we then not a step nearer to the truth then when in ignorance? Then, ... how stupid is the rule that a medicine man should be present when hypno-investigation is used! What is a physicist, a first-aid man, to know about ideational techniques? Certainly not more then the next (door) amateur who has read some leaflets about it, if that. Knowing the genesis of stupidity, the shift in drive, from belly to applause, its logical development, we know also of the same in the practising of law. Judges, jury, counselors, prosecutors, etc. are driven first by applause and a long way second by justice (see Spencer). But the most utter, inhumane stupidity is the founding of justice upon revenge. We know that it is phylogenetically very young, therefore ontogenetically very young too. Children are very apt to it. It is a Neandertaloid-era arrest. (Children, like Xerxes who punished the sea (revenge), can be observed to do likewise with inanimate objects.) No proper justice whatsoever, can exist on a basis of revenge, as our justice is today. The stupid wench from Olympia, the goddess Justicia, has been blindfolded for no purpose. She was already stark blind for human dignity from birth onwards. Carrying a sword and a pair of scales, instruments for measuring and paying out punishment (revenge) is so contrary to human dignity that even animals are beyond it. The sword and scales show the superfluousness of the blindfold. They mean 'an eye for an eye' or '14 eyes for 14 eyes'. Certainly we can do better than Hammurabi qua human dignity? The fundamental mistake in organizing justice in such a way, rests on the all out misconception of a 'Summum Bonum' principle, meaning that one is allowed to hurt people for the best of the whole. Scientifically, this promise of being hurt (revenge) 'might' hold persons back from hurting others, yet, there is no logical connection between the two. People who have actually hurt society or persons in it, must be either re-educated (by modern ideational means) so as to prevent repetition, or, when this is not possible, should be isolated from society, preventing repetition thereby. Can one (judge) state and act on, the verdict that the man is a danger for society, (for women or children, etc.) AND sentence him for 5 or 10 years? Is he not dangerous anymore after that then? When, after the proper time in prison, the pseudologists or pseudiatrists declare him no longer a danger for the kids or for humanity what on earth are they talking about? Everybody can grow, turn, or be made into a danger. It goes for your neighbour, his wife and your own dog as well. Wells said it admirably:

Make men and women only sufficiently jealous or fearful or drunken or angry, and the hot red eyes of the cavemen will glare out at us today.

That other people are only 'potentially' dangerous and not 'de facto', is caused by civilization, the moral restraint of not to do what one really would like to do ((self-)discipline). Thereby, is criminality in general dependent upon the pressure of population in the first place, followed by the circumstances like poverty, the show of riches of others, education, effectiveness of the police apparatus, and very, very long way off, on genetic mutation. The difference between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal, lies not in the potential danger, but in the fact that the latter has demonstrated a lack in restraint, while the good citizen practises this restraint (still). For both, the prediction of danger is positive, only in the one, the likelihood is great. The criminal has shown to take rights that he denies to others, and to demand duties of others that he himself will not perform. The measure of man, is man, said the classics. The measure of rights, of your rights, is that what you grant to others, of your duties is that what you demand from others. In simple daily life, the man who blasts his claxon in the middle of the night, when taking leave of his hosts, might be called out of bed in a following night, with the message that he denied the right of sleep to others some nights ago. In the same way may a car owner who cannot wash his car outside without his radio blaring away, expect that somebody would dump his garbage over it later. The rights you 'take', you 'must' allow to others. Wilful disturbance of the peace of others, who might be studying or trying to catch sleep, or have sick children, does not give the victims the right to disturb the peace in general too, but they have the right to disturb it for the man himself, when he is sleeping. With regard to the law, this is different, because it implies all others. Naturally, what has been misdone, if possible, should be re-paired by the culprit. This is not revenge but simple basic ethics. A person who has stolen say, 1000 units from society or from some other citizen, by damaging or taking away, has to pay back, restore for the full amount. This, needless to say, includes the cost of investigation, the work done in the justice organizations, etc. The man, when caught, must then re-store the amount of the organization and pay, salaries, equipment, etc. of investigators and judges alike, to the full. After all, these are costs taken from society as a whole, by committing this misdoing. Every non-criminal citizen has the same right to taxpayer's money pool, therefore, when these are not fully restored, the criminal would profit by his crime, by this amount added. No re-venge but re-pair. There always remain people that would deny this statement about the revenge-type nature of punishment in our judicature. They are blind for proof, for the fact that the measure of punishment (revenge) depends today, on the ratio of the crime. This is only allowed when it is for restoration, and then only to the full amount. The person(s) of the victim(s), are taken into account, the amount of money, the fact of recidive, etc. We cannot be blind for the cold facts that a thief of a large amount of money gets heavier (!) punishment than the thief of a very small amount. For the fact that when he has done it before, the revenge is larger, for the fact that when the victim is a normal man, or when he is the prime-minister, the measure of revenge differ accordingly, for the fact that 'sympathy, magnanimity, mercy, leniency, etc. ' play a determining role. With regard to judges, defending counselors and public, even mob-shouting take part in meeting out justice, revenge. Our ways of meeting out 'capital punishment' (in itself anti-ethical) up till today, indicate the barbarious inhuman nature of revenge. All animal breeders know that to put an unhappy misproduction to death in a humane, a human dignified way, is to put the animal in a box with ether in it. The animal thus gets sleepy, is anaesthetised, and dies. Since 1825 when the knowledge of the workings of ether became fully known, there have been executions by beastly firing-squad, hanging (Nuremberg), by the Garotte, the Guillotine, electric shock, etc. Not human dignity, but bestiality in order to revenge. This involvement of 'emotion' in the process, a clearer sign for the revenge-like nature is hardly thinkable. This emotion makes it possible that there are 'good, less good, and bad' types of defending counselors. In clear language, it means that for the same crime, the punishment depends on the skill of another person. Very rich people will say: 'We'll get you the very best'. The unfortunate has to do with less skilled counselors and get heavier revenge. Justice in the new-world must be based upon rights and duties, not upon emotions.

Maybe justice is an unemotional proposition, like building ... Sinclair Lewis, The God Seekers.