"I Paid The Money Back" Oh. Oh?
Ontario had the absurd occurrence of a thief repeatedly victimizing Chinese shop-owners in Toronto's Chinatown, by lifting goods and making off with them without paying the shop-owners. And then this notorious thief decided to steal from one particular shop-owner. And the police issuing a warrant for the shop-owner for having had the audacity of waylaying the thief to await the arrival of the police.
Justice is not always necessarily what one thinks it should be. Yet this incident, which was well publicized and raised the disbelieving ire of just about every resident of the province, became the catalyst for a change in the law. And the victim who was treated as though he were the thief, and the thief who was handled with kid gloves, did eventually see justice.
It happens everywhere. Where society bends over backwards to try to understand what would motivate some individuals to behave in a socially-destructive, unlawful manner, and to benevolently offer that person opportunities to redeem him or herself. In the process, all too often the harm done to the victim is casually overlooked.
In the town of Witham in Essex, eastern England, the owner of a flooring business had hired a man whom he felt would be a good employee. He was a family man, a father of three. And then the employer, Simon Cremer, discovered that his trusted employee Mark Gilbert, had taken the liberty of forging a cheque in the sum of $1,350 to himself.
When it was reported,the police issued a caution. Mostly because the employer had taken the initiative to hang a sign across his employee's chest, stating the disgraceful conduct he had exhibited, in taking a substantial amount of money from his employer. With the sign firmly in place, Simon Cremer frog-marched Mark Gilbert very visibly through downtown Witham.
Mr. Gilbert launched a civil suit, going after two years' lost earnings and compensation for the 'distress' he suffered at the public display of his malfeasance. Mr. Cremer decided to settle out of court when he learned he would have to pay $40,000 in court costs. He ended up paying his former untrustworthy employee $7,970, and still had $12,760 in legal fees to pay.
"I don't want to give him a penny after what he did, so it really sticks in my throat", he told The Daily Telegraph. For Mr. Cremer, the wronged employer, justice grinds slowly, painfully, not very satisfyingly, nor cost-effectively. He was robbed, and he ended up paying compensation to the man who robbed him and claimed trauma and distress.
For Mr. Gilbert, justice rang the right note: "I feel for the bloke, I respect the bloke but I want him to pay for what he's done. I went in my local pub and felt a cold shoulder. I probably deserved it for what I did, fair enough, but I wasn't stealing from him and I paid the money back."
Justifiable perspective is just about everything, isn't it?
Justice is not always necessarily what one thinks it should be. Yet this incident, which was well publicized and raised the disbelieving ire of just about every resident of the province, became the catalyst for a change in the law. And the victim who was treated as though he were the thief, and the thief who was handled with kid gloves, did eventually see justice.
It happens everywhere. Where society bends over backwards to try to understand what would motivate some individuals to behave in a socially-destructive, unlawful manner, and to benevolently offer that person opportunities to redeem him or herself. In the process, all too often the harm done to the victim is casually overlooked.
In the town of Witham in Essex, eastern England, the owner of a flooring business had hired a man whom he felt would be a good employee. He was a family man, a father of three. And then the employer, Simon Cremer, discovered that his trusted employee Mark Gilbert, had taken the liberty of forging a cheque in the sum of $1,350 to himself.
When it was reported,the police issued a caution. Mostly because the employer had taken the initiative to hang a sign across his employee's chest, stating the disgraceful conduct he had exhibited, in taking a substantial amount of money from his employer. With the sign firmly in place, Simon Cremer frog-marched Mark Gilbert very visibly through downtown Witham.
Mr. Gilbert launched a civil suit, going after two years' lost earnings and compensation for the 'distress' he suffered at the public display of his malfeasance. Mr. Cremer decided to settle out of court when he learned he would have to pay $40,000 in court costs. He ended up paying his former untrustworthy employee $7,970, and still had $12,760 in legal fees to pay.
"I don't want to give him a penny after what he did, so it really sticks in my throat", he told The Daily Telegraph. For Mr. Cremer, the wronged employer, justice grinds slowly, painfully, not very satisfyingly, nor cost-effectively. He was robbed, and he ended up paying compensation to the man who robbed him and claimed trauma and distress.
For Mr. Gilbert, justice rang the right note: "I feel for the bloke, I respect the bloke but I want him to pay for what he's done. I went in my local pub and felt a cold shoulder. I probably deserved it for what I did, fair enough, but I wasn't stealing from him and I paid the money back."
Justifiable perspective is just about everything, isn't it?
Labels: Britain, Human Relations, Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ 7:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home