Hollywood, using the latest computer generated animation cartoon techniques, finds it profitable to juxtapose the age of reptiles, dominated by its gigantic vegetarians and ferocious two-legged carnivores, with the age of mammals, in which the mildly rational little Homo sapiens has lately starred. The viewer is reminded of a predation threat that might have been, but was not. Or almost not, because there are still beasts quite capable of taking human life.

Tigers and lions openly roam the plains of Africa and the jungles of Central and Southeast Asia. Humans are still being taken in the world’s rivers by those remaining dinosaurs, the alligators and crocodiles. In the oceans sharks are a risk not always accepted by swimmers. When combined with the potential for losing an argument with a lion or a tiger, these unpleasant facts reveal that predation is a fact of daily life in more areas than is generally supposed, so it cannot be said that the species Homo sapiens has no predators.

Urban life is not free of fret. For most the automobile is the major menace. Much distress comes directly from other humans. There are people who are capable of killing you for the little cash you carry. They don’t hate you. They don’t even know you. These predators are called criminals. Generally they are not intent to cause a commotion. Unless provoked they will not carve your carcass. They are causally unconcerned, even innocently indifferent to your discomfort. The thief usually just wants your valuables with a minimum of fuss. Perhaps his bairn are hungry and he is too proud to beg.

Other humans will kill you because they need your mortality to make a morbid message for others. Your death is just a means to their end. There is nothing personal. They don’t hate you; they just need some deaths as theatre to create an unsettling fear in others. It draws audience to their play. The intent is to influence behaviour or attitudes which are considered intransigent. For lack of a more accurate and descriptive term they are called terrorists. Please focus, for the moment, on the suffix, the ‘ists’ part of the label.

Another type of human who will kill you is the dictator. It is safer to escape their attention. If you object to their behaviour, they might kill you. They don’t hate you. They don’t even know you. They kill you because you have become a threat to them. You may expose their crimes and lies. They don’t want their crimes and lies exposed. They especially do not want such exposure if it threatens their position of power. The dictator is thus a form of predator who preys, so to speak, on other humans. The term cannibal is apt.

It can be convincingly argued that such creatures are out and about, more here than there. The intended prey is we, and that is mildly disturbing. The Earth of late has suddenly become filled with more predators. It is no longer such a safe place to live. There is now no place to hide, and everyone is required to line up and sign a loyalty oath saying we support the local ism, along with the dictator who heads it.

We must also denounce the anti-ism, and indicate a willingness to be an anti-ist. The pros and cons are interchangeable, depending on geography and cultural history, almost all of which is beyond the individual’s control. Lack of control or responsibility is not an allowed excuse for refusing to sign. Refusal is tantamount to membership in the opposing faction. “'Tis a puzzlement,” as Anna’s King said.

The rights of the criminal are reasonably well defined by the criminal code, and it is generally agreed that the man who is to be labeled ‘criminal’ must be shown to have contravened that code. A defendant has a right to reject the charges brought against him, and must be allowed to offer a defense through a competent legal representative. Unless the evidence convincingly favors guilt, it cannot be asserted, and no punishment is meted out.

In the interests of maintaining basic human rights for all, some parties who are actually guilty will inevitably escape deserved punishment. The failure of the law to convict them does not mean they are not criminals. It does mean that there is not enough evidence to prove them guilty, and thus they are entitled to benefit from the lack of proof. This is the proper legal procedure, and it must be maintained as a manner of principle to avoid injustice to the innocent.

Though a known criminal freed is a continuing threat to others, freedom of movement must be restored, even though there is risk to society. The interest of the public in human rights for everyone is deemed to supersede the desire to provide absolute security through preventive detention. This provides protection to the innocent. The alternative, preventive detention, always proves too strong a temptation to the dictator, who abuses the executive authority that is given to him so he can carry out his duty to enforce the law. He always argues against the legal princicple that a defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The safeguards are not rigorously in place. Recently in separate cases, each of two men convicted of rape were released when new DNA evidence established their innocence. They both had served over twenty years imprisonment. This shows there is always a chance that an innocent person will be labeled ‘criminal’ and given a punishment that fits the crime. Society tries to minimise these mistakes, and when error is found, the innocent are freed, frequently with redress. There is no redress that can repair the damage done by time spent in unfair incarceration.

The guilty are thus freed when there is not sufficient evidence to convict. This is a failure of prosecution, not a failure of the justice system. Such releases must be allowed to occur, in order to maintain appropriate safeguards to carefully protect the rights of everyone who is charged. But no false evidence must be fabricated to remedy the matter. When the police and other officers of the court violate the rules of investigation and legal procedure, the defendant must be released. The accused must not be held without bail for purposes of extracting incriminating information, and certainly jailhouse confessions are highly suspect.

Dictators favor preventive detention because it presents a ready opportunity to dispose of major political foes. If the dictator is himself a criminal, as is usually the case, and those who have evidence to prove this guilt cry out loudly for justice, the dictator can silence them by incarceration. The convenient charge is that the person arrested is an ‘ist’.

The dictator uses the authority of the police to protect his usurped power. Providing a semblance of law and order attracts public support for the police action. The citizen, not wishing to have criminals at large who might act against property in which he has a personal interest, does not object. Thus the dictator is unopposed when he orders the police or military to confine the opponent, and little protection is available to the defendant once he is under detention.

The arrest itself is proffered as evidence of guilt. This is intolerable abuse. If allowed, then conviction becomes instantaneous. The arresting officer is allowed the prerogative of the judge, and the arrestee has no right of appeal. The ignominy attaches at the time of arrest, with the immediate loss of freedom of action, accompanied by loss of dignity and public humiliation. The dictator says this procedural system is justified by its avoidance of any necessity to create a purgatory for suspects. Once arrested, guilt is automatic, and in the absence of a trial, judgment and sentence, incarceration can be indefinite. As in the Monopoly board game, you “Go directly to jail, do not pass Trial.”

Dinosaur I

back to list of articles

The url of this page is https://harunrmy0.tripod.com/20dinosaur2.html