Not Malheur at all but public lands nonetheless |
Thinking back to my philosophy of law classes more than
thirty years ago, I can remember—vaguely—the debates about why there is
punishment. One school of thought is that it’s preventative; you punish people
for murdering someone because that discourages others from murdering people
themselves. Another view was that you punished the person for their crime in
order to rehabilitate them. A third argument was that the only way to treat the
individual with respect was to hold them accountable for their actions. In this
view the point wasn’t that it was good for them or good for society, though
there could be those side effects, but rather it was treating them as a
rational human being worthy of respectful treatment. It just happened that
“respectful,” in this instance, meant locking them up in jail for a good long
time because they had done something very wrong. (Thinking about this on my ride in this morning, it occurred to me that there was also a "protect society" position. See? Cycling does improve one's thought processes.)
The astute reader
will realize that since I go on longest about that third option—and with
muddiest language—that it was the position I favored all those years ago. It’s
an odd extension of the Golden Rule: treating others as you would like to be
treated. I think, usually, that I want to be treated like a grown-up capable of
making informed decisions and when those are wrong decisions, I should probably
have to deal with those consequences. (In reality, I’m sure, I’d love to be
allowed to skate on my mistakes and, quite frequently, that’s how it works out
for me. Consistent and true to my ideals, I so often am not.)
But, let’s pretend I didn’t have the moment of honesty there
and go back to the original three justifications for punishment and my declared
alignment with the third. Today, it all wavers because I read this from
one of the “remaining occupiers” at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, as he
explains why he’s not willing to leave the Refuge:
“The option is you go out there and
they get you and it’s a felony crime and it’s a prison sentence…A lot of us are
scared of that option.”
“We’re not planning on using any guns. Like I
said, we [want] to go home,” he said. “But if they want to attack us then
we got to defend ourselves.”
“If they come in to arrest then they’re going
to throw us behind bars where weird shit would happen.”
Today I read this (and do click the link and read the whole short piece yourself; it's illuminating in a depressing way) and think this man has consciously chosen
to take over a public land and apparently is only now realizing that there
could be some unpleasant consequences. I’d heap abuse on him for being so
damned stupid except that, to some extent, he was justified in thinking it was
all sort of a game since Mr.
Cliven Bundy got away—and continues to get away—with grazing his animals on
public land without paying for it. Having set that precedent, possibly the
FBI shouldn’t be surprised that his imitators feel like it’s not fair that any
of them should be held accountable. Which is why, I’d say, they’ve got to stop
suggesting that charges won’t be filed and that anyone involved will not be
prosecuted for the occupation of Malheur. The example set otherwise encourages
future sad sacks like David Fry to get themselves into situations where shit’s
gonna happen.
"if they want to attack us then we got to defend ourselves"
ReplyDeleteIf only the federal government had said this to itself 28 days ago.