What do you mean, exactly?

11 August 2017 - I mused as I read a headline in a national newspaper today. It read:

 

'Racist' Asian sex gangs:

MPs demand tougher sentences for

grooming young white girls

The authors of the article were the newspaper’s CRIME correspondent and its deputy POLITICAL editor. An interesting combination, I thought.  Neither would be responsible for the headline, of course. Headlines are a whole different speciality.

My first thought was to consider the difference between ‘justice’ and ‘vengeance’ and I sought definitions on the website: www.differencebetween.com – inevitably American.

Vengeance vs Justice

“Vengeance and justice are two concepts with a clear difference between them, even though most people tend to confuse these two when wronged. It is quite normal to feel betrayed, angry and hurt, and even vengeful after being wronged by another. Depending on the gravity of the situation, the need to seek revenge or justice can also vary. However, trying to resolve the situation through justice is always a better method rather than the use of vengeance. Through this article, let us examine the differences between these two emotions that people feel.”

Vengeance

It explained further: “The key characteristic in vengeance is that the individual takes the law into his hands, rather than operating within a system. It is not the actual laws that govern his thoughts and actions, but his anger and bottled up emotions. This is the danger of vengeance. The sole purpose of the individual is not to gain a just response or solution to the situation, but to quench his thirst for revenge. Vengeance can be viewed not only as a negative emotion but also a very destructive one because it blurs the sense of right and wrong of an individual. Justice, however, is very different to vengeance.

Justice can be defined as just behaviour or treatment. Justice is the accepted manner of finding solutions to a problem, by working within a system. For instance, imagine a situation where a criminal is caught by civilians in a small town. If the people hit the criminal and take the law into their hands for the crimes that he has committed against them, then that is vengeance. However, if the people hand him over to the police station so that he can be dealt with in a just manner, then that promotes justice.

In the case of justice, the issue is viewed in an objective manner so that it is fair for both parties. Unlike in the case of vengeance where the individual is driven by his emotions of anger, pain, and hurt, in the case of justice, it is different. The one who committed the crime is given a punishment (by whom? – MD) based on his crime. This creates a just and fair way of settling matters. Unlike vengeance, justice is positive and promotes the well-being of the society.”

* * * *

Having read this far, have you yet begun to pick holes in these definitions? I did. I began to think about my English lessons when I was a schoolboy. My teacher told me that an adjective is ‘a doing word’ or, more formally, any member of a class of words that modify nouns and pronouns, primarily by describing a particular quality of the word they are modifying. As I said: a doing word.

An adverb, on the other hand, any member of a class of words that function as modifiers of verbs or clauses, and in some languages, such as Latin and English, as modifiers of adjectives.

Stay with me. I’ve almost finished. The word ‘racial’ is an adjective. The word ‘racially’ is an adverb. The word ‘Asian’ is both an adjective and a noun. www.dictionary.com confirmed there is no definition for ‘sex gangs’.

An MP is a Member of Parliament who represents, first and foremost, a political party, despite any protestations that, to the contrary, he/she really, truly, honestly, please believe me, represents those who elected him to his post. Apparently these representatives ‘demand’ – from whom?¹ – tougher sentences for (anyone found guilty of) ‘grooming’ (an adjective) young (another adjective) white (yet another adjective) girls (noun). Asians versus young white girls. Wow. That’s a humdinger!

In short, the headline is a mish-mash of words designed to attract attention and, presumably, sell the paper. Everything in the headline is modified to achieve a particular effect. It pretends to be concerned with crime but the emphasis is political – hence the combination of reporters who wrote the article.

* * * *

I put it to you that crime, especially adjectivally endorsed crime, is still just crime. No adjectives required. 

From time immemorial all communities across the world – even primitive communities - have maintained order by appointing representatives of that community to hear evidence of crime; and after hearing the evidence, to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty as charged; and to determine the just sentence of the community upon the guilty. That includes the community having the power to conclude that a person is guilty or not guilty as charged and at the same time having the power to decide the lightness or severity of the punishment. The head honcho in the community took (should still take) responsibility only for determining that the sentence was applied.

And that describes COMMON LAW and Trial by Jury in action.
 

I contend that rules and statutes which take away and detract from this essential system of self government are driven politically, or else are in pursuit of money and/or power. I’ve discussed elsewhere that the love of money is the root of all evil. It is well said also, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Attributed to John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). Later he added: “Great men are almost always bad men."

I conclude that our courts as presently structured are unlawful; that our Parliament as presently structured is unlawful; and that our money-serving news media aids and abets the unlawful processes.

Need I say more? I rest my case. quod erat demonstrandum.

(1)Criminal cases come to court after a decision has been made by, usually the Crown Prosecution Service, to prosecute someone for an alleged crime. In the vast majority of cases (over 95 per cent), magistrates hear the evidence and, as a panel, make a decision on guilt or innocence. For more serious cases a district judge (Magistrates’ Court) or a circuit judge in the Crown Court will hear the evidence, and in the case of the latter, this will involve a jury trial. Very serious criminal cases, such as murder and rape, may be heard by a High Court judge.