Freedom vs. Freedom-less

I read the headlines this morning of another judicial decision that goes against all rational, obvious, intuitive reasoning. Is anybody else bothered by the seemingly endless juvenility of decisions by some judges and juries? What is it that makes the court system able to put Martha Stewart in jail for several months (no, I am not suggesting she should not have gone to jail) while allowing a person who has committed a much more severe crime than she to go to jail for only days? Take for example the murderer who is released on grounds of one piece of evidence out of nine having been improperly analyzed (an extreme example). Though eight items of evidence affirm he or she is guilty, the one piece of evidence may allow a killer to walk the streets, unchanged, once again--depending on the variable of who is the judge and who makes up the jury. In such circumstances, does rational human thinking have anything to do with the decisions made in courts of law, or do we allow the "evidence" only to speak without regard to the fact that "evidence" is mostly an inanimate, passionless object? I think much of the seemingly erroneous court decisions have to do with the people's perception of what freedom actually entails. Subsequently, it seems many far too often suffer from allowing themselves to become so open-minded, their brains fall out. Once again, moderation, i.e. the Meridian, would seem to result in a fair, rational decision to be made .

I was riding the bus some years ago and listened to a young man tell his story of smoking illegal substances on the lawn of the capitol building. He told the police officer that confronted him that he was only pursuing his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The police officer then left him alone. Is that the most ridiculous thing in the world, or is it just me? Oh, I know, those who entertain such actions will only disagree with me, but we have to look at what history has taught us.

Activist groups use every and any method possible to fight the current war in Iraq in an effort to avenge and save the lives lost. Do they, however, consider the number of lives lost due to the lack of corralling the use of alcohol consumption in America and, perhaps, in their own lives? Why are we not fighting a war against drunk driving--a potentially homicidal act condoned and even promoted on various levels? The reality of freedom is, there is no freedom without boundaries set in place. Subsequently, it is difficult for courts of law to have firm, fair and consistent trials because the definition of freedom is severely misunderstood. Thus, freedom has more to do with restrictions than it does with being able to do whatever one desires.

For instance, how does one define freedom of speech? Is it giving the option to a still malleable high school student to take part in illegal, harmful acts in the name of free speech? Without any corralling, how can a young one have any direction in life? A street light may offer some understanding. When we obey the laws of street lights, we are out of harm's way--avoiding accidents and injury. Our freedom, then, to live and continue to drive offers us further existence. Thus, when controls and guidance are in place, the doors of freedom open wide saving us from putatively dangerous paths.

Alas, too many parents, too many lawyers and judges, too many intellectuals, too much of misunderstanding, hatred and selfishness drive the work of the world wayward. Perhaps the future will slap us across the head and reveal to us the stupidity of what is now considered the greatest intellectual era of human history, even the present. Ultimately, when unrestricted, mankind is destined to become freedom-less.