A Lawyer I Can Admire
You probably have gotten the impression that I don’t have a lot of respect for lawyering as a profession, and for most lawyers as thinkers. You would be correct. Law school does not teach the law. It teaches how to think like a lawyer, which is not the same as how to think like a normal logical person dwelling in the Natural Law of the universe. In our day and age, it is an artificial, and ultimately deathly way to think.
Why else would one almost always need to be a lawyer before one can become a law-maker in the legislative branch of our government? Because the unnatural lawyerly way of thinking has resulted in unnatural growth and metastasis of government. Normal logic and Natural Law did not build this monstrosity, and are excluded from it.
Why else is our country now involved in a vicious struggle to free our law-making capacities from the law-making by fiat of the judicial branch of the government (staffed solely by lawyers)? Exhibit Number One: California’s turmoil over Proposition 8.
Because of the metastasis, a non-lawyer has no hope of navigating the maze of government. A normal person has no hope that normal logic and thinking in accord with Natural Law will have any happy result in our government. We are ruled by a tyranny of lawyers rather than by the gifts of the whole people. It is the foxes guarding our henhouse. It is a travesty.
But you might be surprised to learn that I am an opponent of the death penalty in America. Here we have the capability to provide secure lifetime confinement for perpetrators of heinous crimes. It is even less expensive to do so for life, rather than churn the legal system with endless appeals and pleadings and whatnot-jargon-stuff they churn when a death penalty is in the picture. And, no, the perps don’t need cable TV and plush weight rooms and all that stuff. Give them 3 squares, a clean uni every couple of days, a clean cell and bathroom, a non-demonically-inspired scripture book, and other edifying books for their mental consumption, and we’re good. Why no death penalty? Well, how about this notion: that conviction might have been a mistake. It is on our own heads if we should execute an innocent person. I for one don’t want to take that chance. I have enough sins to account for from my daily life, thank you. Also, when we execute someone, we take away his chance to repent and do what penance he can.
So it’s about my soul, and it’s about his soul, too.
So that said, here’s Craig Watkins in Dallas, using up-to-date technology to right egregious wrongs from the past. He is taking a lot of flak for it from his fellow prosecutors (all lawyers), which just confirms my prejudices in that regard. Read their responses and you see no integrity, no concern for Justice or Truth, just self-centered concern for their own conviction rates. It confirms what I have learned about prosecutors from my own experiences serving jury duty. Pathetic. But Mr. Watkins soldiers on, and I applaud him.