By William Markiewicz
Perhaps not. Is she guilty? Yes. It reminds me of two cases from the past. I don't remember in which country, but in Eastern Europe. Some peasant was put on trial for pulling out railroad pins. When the judge told him that he was responsible for a terrible catastrophe with innumerable victims, he answered that he understands but he needed the pins as ballast for his fishing net -- otherwise there would be no catch. Here we see unilateral logic combined with a total lack of human empathy.
Another example is connected with excessive feeling of power that smashed everything else. The mother in the previous case lacked power, which made her a pathological liar; she just played for time to escape her responsibilities. A man was condemned to prison for life for killing his twelve year old son. The prisoners asked him "Why did you do it?" He answered, "It's simple. He was mine and I could do what I wanted." And to underline his point, he took off his shoes and threw them away. "You see, it's like my shoes. They are mine and I can do what I want." As a result he spent the winter without shoes.
This woman had no social responsibility through lack of empathy and excessive self-preoccupation. Perhaps she couldn't be condemned for murder but when interviewed, the Prosecutor declared that she should be totally ignored, isolated from society. She who lived for pleasure, how would she bear this excommunication? Probably only the crime world would accept her. So her destiny may be crime unless she emigrates, changes her name and sinks into anonymity.Back to the index of the Vagabond