The two accused men sat together next to their attorney, who
was standing. The judge was about to respond to the attorney when the courtroom
door opened and the prosecutor hurriedly entered.
“My apologies to the court, Your Honor.” he said, and then
quickly took his position on the other side of the court opposite the defense
attorney and his clients.
“Now that Mr. Smith is – finally – here,” the defense
attorney made sure his emphasis wasn’t missed, “I motion, again, that this case
be dismissed.”
“Objection, Your Honor”, quickly interjected the prosecutor.
“These two men”, and he indicated the accused, “have knowingly, willingly, and
repeatedly violated the First Principles that our Republic is based upon, and
if we turn a blind eye to their actions then these standards…indeed, the rule
of the land…will be nothing more than vacuous words on a useless document.”
One of the accused men frowned and the other narrowed his
eyes.
“What is the evidence against these men?”
“Well, Your Honor, the behavior that these two men engage
in” – and Mr. Smith gave the two men a hard look – “could not be more contrary
to the whole purpose of our First Principles, namely, that the well-being of an
ordered society rests upon – indeed, is dependent upon – the unity and health
of the most fundamental unit of society, that of a mother, a father, and their
offspring.”
“Objection Your Honor”, protested the defense attorney.
“Mr. Jones.”
“First, what Mr. Smith said is not evidence. Second, my
clients have a right to engage in this activity under our privacy laws.”
“What people do in private, Your Honor, often have profound
societal affects and is a specious argument, as was proved years ago after the
collapse of our legal system for its abject failure to protect the foundations
of society from the ravenous desires of a rabid individualism.”
“Are you saying, Mr. Smith, that the defendants do not have
a right to engage in their activity in the privacy of their own home or someone
else’s?” The judge was unconsciously tapping the butt-end of his pen on top of
his desk.
“Not if it directly or indirectly affects our First
Principals, and these men…” the disdain in the prosecutor’s voice and glance at
the defendants was slight but unmistakable, “…have a reputation for such
unlawful activity.”
“Objection, Your Honor!” The defense attorney was having
none of it. “Not only do my clients not have ‘a reputation’ for this behavior,
but the First Principals are meant as a guide post, not as a bludgeon to strip
people of their individual freedom.”
“Mr. Jones, is it not true that your clients have engaged in
their activity in public venues, and with other people? Individual freedom - or
license in this case - ends when the public good is threatened. But this by now
is an old and well-established argument.”
At these words, one of the accused men glared at the
prosecutor and the other’s lip twitched.
“Mr. Smith, please direct your comments to the court.” The
judge clearly wanted to keep control of the proceedings.
“Your Honor,” Mr. Jones began, “one cannot fundamentally
change who they are. My clients’ responsibility in their occasional excess is
largely out of their control as they are genetically predisposed to this
condition.”
“Objection! Scientists have been looking for this supposed
gene for decades and still haven’t definitely found it. And if they did, would
it justify these men’s behavior? The argument is irrelevant because, genetic
predisposition or not, it would be a minority trait that would still violate
the good of the majority.”
The judge frowned hard at the prosecutor. “You are mistaken,
Mr. Smith. On the contrary, it is a well-established fact that certain people
are more genetically vulnerable to this problem than others.”
The prosecutor raised his eyebrows in disbelief. “I’m not
necessarily up to date on the latest scientific research in this area, but
‘well-established’ Your Honor? Regardless, if a trait like, say, pyromania is
genetically well-established in individuals, is it acceptable for society to
excuse it away and let these individuals burn down buildings and forests
because it’s in their genes to do so? Clearly, certain behaviors, no matter
their origin, are detrimental to the health and safety of a people.”
“Well then, Mr. Smith, in your opinion how then should all
the citizens of our nation be treated who have this inclination? Should they
all be taken off the street and prosecuted for every infraction?”
“Every infraction, Your Honor?” The prosecutor’s eyebrows
went up even higher. “Of course we can’t turn a blind eye to any instance of
this serious transgression of First Principals! If we did our society would
quickly devolve back into the relativistic and individualistic nihilism that
doomed us in the first place.”
“Your Honor,” The defense attorney began, but was looking at
the prosecutor, “if we followed Mr. Smith’s recommendations our jails would
quickly fill up to capacity and remain that way indefinitely; depriving our
good citizens of the ability to properly provide for themselves and their
families, and that would be by far the greater crime.”
“Mr. Smith, would you agree that all men are by nature
fallen creatures?” The judge was once again tapping his pen after a brief
pause.
“Of course, Your Honor.”
“Therefore, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Considering the judge’s words for several seconds, the
prosecutor replied. “That saying worked well for Jesus in the context it was
used, but when used in the current situation it is bordering on relativism. By
Your Honor’s reasoning, why have any laws at all? Not all sins are of equal
weight, and those that tend to undermine the natural order must be dealt with
more severely than sins that do not, at least directly, upend the natural
order.”
“I agree that abuse is certainly detrimental to the natural
order of the family, and therefore First Principals, but chronic
over-indulgence should be treated through the health system and not through the
prison system. The question before us is whether these two men,” the judge
nodded toward the defendants “are guilty as alleged.”
“With all due respect, Your Honor,” Mr. Smith seemed uneasy,
“but in saying ‘over-indulgence’ you are implying that moderate and occasional
transgressions are acceptable. This behavior can never be condoned no matter
how rarely it occurs.”
One of the accused men’s eyes
bulged and the other's jaw dropped.
“Objection! Your Honor, by this line of reasoning Mr. Smith
would have us all put in jail!”
The prosecutor, frozen in position, looked absolutely
stunned at the defense attorney’s admission.
“Mr. Smith,” the judge’s pen had stopped tapping, “every
Friday night when my wife joins her friends to socialize, my oldest son and I
unwind from our busy week by moderately indulging in this “transgression”, as
you put it. By your standards, are we then acting immorally and criminally?”
The prosecutor stared at the judge in absolute disbelief and
horror. He was starting to feel dizzy, like the whole courtroom was closing in
on him or, conversely, as if someone had detonated an explosive and collapsed
reality. Mr. Smith was absolutely speechless. And that was rare.
“Again, Mr. Smith, don’t you think you have taken all this
too far? Would you then usher in a new era of prohibition?”
“I…” the prosecutor stammered. He was very confused.
What…what did the judge just say?
“Prohib…” He left the rest of the word unsaid. The shreds of
reality began to coalesce: slowly at first, then snapping back together with
such force that Mr. Smith took a step backward. The resulting dawn of
understanding left Mr. Smith weak in the knees.
The prosecutor looked carefully at the defense attorney and
his clients, then turned toward the judge and said in a feeble voice, “Your
Honor, may I approach the bench?”
“Granted.”
Mr. Smith stiffly walked to the judge.
Very quietly so only the judge could hear, the prosecutor
asked humbly, “This isn’t the Roberts case, is it?”
The judge’s deep scowl left creases in his forehead. “No.”
he said dryly, “It’s the Stevens case on public drunkenness.”
Red-faced, Mr. Smith said. “I would like to withdraw my objections.”
