QUOTE (Hiroyuki @ Oct 04 2009, 07:22 PM)I have never heard of Cheb Mami but it seems in this case justice was done, since I don't thihk you would normally get a longer sentence for such a crime.
However in general I think famous people, politicians and police are treated as at least partly exempt from the law. Police can assault or sometimes even kill people and be let off with a warning even though the victim had done nothing to warrant being attacked. Similar cases also occur with politicians, rock stars, etc. I think people in responsible positions or who accept a position as role models should be held more strictly to the law, not less strictly.
Where I live (UK) life has become increasingly scary as police can hassle you about the most trivial of things, but if you assert your civil rights they may arrest you, because asserting your rights apparently constitutes suspicious behaviour, a Catch 22 situation. There have been cases of tourists being assuaulted for taking photos of public buildings for instance, with police claiming that taking photos is suspicious (ie. possible terrorists). It is clear that what is going on are criminal assaults against blameless people, yet they are never prosecuted for this whereas an ordinary person would be sent to jail for harassing or attacking people in public.
With regard to specifically politicians, the exemption, at least in part, from the law goes back millenia. Most areas of the world developed multiple social classes as communities formed. Among the duties of the upper classes was to protect the lower classes. During conflicts, the lower classes supplied manpower, due to their large numbers, but the upper classes were better educated, more influential, and better able to lead, and therefore were the most likely to wage war, organize economic projects, and settle disputes. In exchange for this service of providing leadership and protection for the lower classes, minor character flaws were overlooked. If it were a requirement that people in positions of power be of perfect character, not enough people would have qualified, having both the ethical values and education/background necessary for those positions. While in this day and age, class barriers are less pronounced (education is more universal, and leadership opportunities are not granted solely based on bloodline), there are still some allowances made for those with the skills, connections, and experience to serve in positions of power.
I'm not saying it makes their actions forgivable or proper, but overall their character flaws are offset by the positive influences they make. That is why people in positions of power are still awarded leniency. If you're looking to have every position of power in the world filled by someone who is incorruptable, 100% law abiding, and having the skills and determination to do the job, let me assure you that there are not enough people in the entire world fitting those requirements to fill every position. Is it a good thing? No. But it doesn't help to ask for what doesn't exist.
With regard to police officers, guards, soldiers, and other people with the job to defend people from other people, the reason for leniency is different. These people are faced with risk of death and the duty to protect the lives of others every day. They may not almost lose their lives every day, but at any moment, they may find themselves personally responsible for the safety of the people around them, at risk of their own life. These people cannot be afraid to use whatever means are necessary to protect the lives of those around them, it is their job, their duty, their oath. If a protector is afraid to protect, they become useless. For this reason, police officers and other defenders of people have some immunity from the law when in the execution of their duties. Yes, some defenders abuse this leniency, and it is difficult to draw the line on what is excessive and what is necessary in the mind of the defender to defend others. Again, there are not enough people in the entire world to fill all the posts of protectors, with the skills, willingness, and quick-wittedness to do the job, who are also of perfect character.
As for celebrities? It's because they have wealth, power, and influence. Society gave it to them. Every person who supports that celebrity status is responsible for their immunities to the law. I'll not go further into this, because I think the entire idea of celebrities is rediculous to begin with, but there's nothing I can do about it, most of the world seems to like celebrities.
However in general I think famous people, politicians and police are treated as at least partly exempt from the law. Police can assault or sometimes even kill people and be let off with a warning even though the victim had done nothing to warrant being attacked. Similar cases also occur with politicians, rock stars, etc. I think people in responsible positions or who accept a position as role models should be held more strictly to the law, not less strictly.
Where I live (UK) life has become increasingly scary as police can hassle you about the most trivial of things, but if you assert your civil rights they may arrest you, because asserting your rights apparently constitutes suspicious behaviour, a Catch 22 situation. There have been cases of tourists being assuaulted for taking photos of public buildings for instance, with police claiming that taking photos is suspicious (ie. possible terrorists). It is clear that what is going on are criminal assaults against blameless people, yet they are never prosecuted for this whereas an ordinary person would be sent to jail for harassing or attacking people in public.
With regard to specifically politicians, the exemption, at least in part, from the law goes back millenia. Most areas of the world developed multiple social classes as communities formed. Among the duties of the upper classes was to protect the lower classes. During conflicts, the lower classes supplied manpower, due to their large numbers, but the upper classes were better educated, more influential, and better able to lead, and therefore were the most likely to wage war, organize economic projects, and settle disputes. In exchange for this service of providing leadership and protection for the lower classes, minor character flaws were overlooked. If it were a requirement that people in positions of power be of perfect character, not enough people would have qualified, having both the ethical values and education/background necessary for those positions. While in this day and age, class barriers are less pronounced (education is more universal, and leadership opportunities are not granted solely based on bloodline), there are still some allowances made for those with the skills, connections, and experience to serve in positions of power.
I'm not saying it makes their actions forgivable or proper, but overall their character flaws are offset by the positive influences they make. That is why people in positions of power are still awarded leniency. If you're looking to have every position of power in the world filled by someone who is incorruptable, 100% law abiding, and having the skills and determination to do the job, let me assure you that there are not enough people in the entire world fitting those requirements to fill every position. Is it a good thing? No. But it doesn't help to ask for what doesn't exist.
With regard to police officers, guards, soldiers, and other people with the job to defend people from other people, the reason for leniency is different. These people are faced with risk of death and the duty to protect the lives of others every day. They may not almost lose their lives every day, but at any moment, they may find themselves personally responsible for the safety of the people around them, at risk of their own life. These people cannot be afraid to use whatever means are necessary to protect the lives of those around them, it is their job, their duty, their oath. If a protector is afraid to protect, they become useless. For this reason, police officers and other defenders of people have some immunity from the law when in the execution of their duties. Yes, some defenders abuse this leniency, and it is difficult to draw the line on what is excessive and what is necessary in the mind of the defender to defend others. Again, there are not enough people in the entire world to fill all the posts of protectors, with the skills, willingness, and quick-wittedness to do the job, who are also of perfect character.
As for celebrities? It's because they have wealth, power, and influence. Society gave it to them. Every person who supports that celebrity status is responsible for their immunities to the law. I'll not go further into this, because I think the entire idea of celebrities is rediculous to begin with, but there's nothing I can do about it, most of the world seems to like celebrities.
