A sense of perspective
One of the troubles with being over a certain age is that – having necessarily and inevitably lived one’s youth and maturing years in a society with one set of mores – it’s often quite easy to get suckered into raising an eyebrow (and sometimes more, e.g. one’s hackles) at the attitudes and indeed preoccupations of the younger generations that come after you.
Great it might be if it were not, but life on this planet is an eternal struggle which eventually comes to an end.
Forgive my sweeping generalisation but every species, every type of plant and amoeba, wakes up every morning and immediately goes about the business of finding food, doing things, eventually (hopefully?) perpetuating itself by procreating – and one day finds that it has passed its sell-by date and expires and/or becomes extinct.
Science is the discipline of finding stuff out, or at least a theory that explains everything – that is, until (inevitably?) a subsequent theory comes along which explains it – and perhaps a lot more as well – better.
Or maybe not.
I remember once, in the course of extolling the virtues of Bill Bryson’s book A Short History Of Nearly Everything (2003), positing to a cousin Bryson’s take that every species that has ever existed has eventually become extinct – whereupon my listener shot back “Crocodiles haven’t …” – to which at the time I didn’t have an answer … and indeed I’m not sure I’ve found once since!
Or put it another way, life on Earth is constantly evolving and stuff happens.
Every Empire or great civilisation that ever existed has eventually crumbled.
It is part of human nature that we instinctively believe that the way we live at any particular time – embracing and enjoying the latest technological and cultural advances that our generation has made compared all those made by our predecessors down through history – is both not only “in the bank” but a starting point from which we (and those who follow) will inevitably go forward into an ever-better future for the human race.
But, of course, that (some might say) comfortable and conceited assumption isn’t necessarily borne out by the facts.
Now a sixty-something I can remember as an eight or ten year old – compared to how life is today for those of similar ages – spending my time engaged in some pretty ‘hairy’ activities, e.g. climbing to (and building ‘hides’ in) the uppermost branches of huge trees sometimes twenty or thirty feet above the ground, starting ‘camp’ fires with a can of petrol we’d found somewhere and a box of matches … not to mention other activities … and at the time thinking them not only normal but pretty ‘cool’.
How different is life today in the modern era of ever-more abundant ‘health and safety’ rules designed to protect kids from themselves and the cruel world ‘out there’.
But by the same token, I can also remember as an eight to ten year-old being told tales by my elders and betters how in their day they went off and played on WW2 bomb sites where occasionally live ammunition and bombs might be found.
By those standards what me and my mates were getting up to, or felt was adventurous or exciting, was actually pretty tame.
At this point I’m turning to the subject of the Millennial “woke” generation which seems to make a virtue and obsession of finding things from the past (or indeed present) to be outraged about and is determined to banish or deal with them by ‘re-education programming’, forcing society to apologise – and/or make reparations – for the supposed ‘sins’ of the past, and create a ‘brave new world’ in which every last disadvantaged group know or being invented can have its day.
Never mind that sometimes these do-gooders can get their knickers in a bit of a twist and/or confused – for example, the hordes of feminists who can’t quite decide whether it’s contradictory (or not) to celebrate a woman’s right to wear sexually-charged clothes (or none) – in certain situations, or all the time – and then also complain stoutly and vigorously when any dastardly male ever makes an appreciative comment or indeed a potential ‘relationship’ approach to them.
Or – as I read today in the media – regards embracing the transgender community, and specifically those who act on the new right to ‘self-identify’ as either a man or woman who then want to use female toilets, whether welcoming them into ‘female only toilets’ is a good or bad development.
And what about the feelings of those ‘real’ women who would like the proverbial female ‘rest room’ to be a safe and secure haven from those who (whatever their leanings) have a male appendage flapping about between their legs?
At last to my text for today, an article by Almara Abgarian making a strident point or two about the horrendous recent rape/murder case that has just finished with a conviction for the man accused in New Zealand – see here for a link – THE INDEPENDENT
Whether justifiably or not, Ms Abgarian’s thesis has got me somewhat aerated.
As has some of the campaigning by feminists and others that uses the apparent discrepancy between the numbers of women who are believed to be raped every year in the UK and (1) the far lesser number of cases that are allegedly ever reported, investigated properly, or prosecuted; and (2) the comparatively infinitely tiny (and therefore ‘unacceptable’) number of cases that ever do reach trial and then ultimately result in convictions, in order to support and justify their constant demands that the criminal law should be skewed ever-further in favour of the victims of rape.
I’m simply making a straightforward (and basically legal) point here.
Unless and until the day ever dawns when technology (and artificial intelligence, or ‘AI’?) can provide the human race with a perfect means of plugging someone into a failsafe ‘lie detector’ device and thereby print out the result of whether he or she is guilty of something they’ve been accused of, we are left doing the best we can with systems of dealing with such matters by imperfect and human-fallible versions.
Under the law of England and Wales, unless things have changed since I last looked, there is a fundamental principle – and indeed basic human right – that an accused person is deemed to be innocent until, via a prosecutor proving that they are guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, the law deems otherwise.
This is the very first things that any lawyer practising criminal law learns – apart, that is, perhaps from finding where to look up statute and precedent law.
Many moons ago a lawyer friend of mine explained it to me by describing an early conversation he had with his pupil master (a more senior barrister acting as his mentor).
He had asked how he – the pupil master – could justify to himself undertaking to defend a self-admitted habitual criminal recidivist in court against yet another criminal charge.
The pupil master did by referring to the principles firstly, that every man (or woman) is regarded as innocent until proved guilty and secondly, (an absolute as regards legal professional integrity) that if a prospective defendant ever admits to his lawyer that he is guilty as charged, that lawyer must either persuade the accused to plead so, or else – if the accused refuses to do so – withdraw from the case.
The pupil master then said that the police and/or prosecuting counsel has no right whatsoever to a conviction unless and until they had persuaded the judge (and/or the jury, if it is a case involving one) ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that the defendant had committed the crime of which he/she was accused.
To be blunt – under the law, no defendant ever has to prove his/her innocence.
Rather, the prosecution has to prove his guilt and, if it cannot do that, it isn’t entitled to a conviction.
Now, it’s a point to acknowledge that some might say, when it comes to criminal law, the legal profession is engaged in a ‘game’ – that of the one side trying to convince the court that the defendant is guilty … and the other, not that instead the accused is innocent, but rather just that the prosecution has failed to prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that he is guilty.
And there’s the rub.
It doesn’t matter a jot whether the prosecution has mistakenly brought the wrong charge, or presented their case incompetently, or failed to provide sufficient evidence of the crime alleged (or indeed that the accused committed it).
All that matters is whether the defence legal team – by whatever means, perhaps including the brilliance or persuasiveness of its submissions and arguments – can convince the court that the prosecution has failed to make their case to the degree – I repeat, beyond a reasonable doubt – that the law requires.
End of message.
