It recently occurred to me that the positions that we entrust the most professional, educated adults to hold are the same positions that mimic childhood.
Such a thought first came to me when listening to a friend talk about his experience in a law firm. This friend’s story involved matrimonial law and a client’s soon to be ex who was basically prank-calling the office and sending “funny” mail that can be best understood by picturing a toddler throwing a temper tantrum because he was refused a cookie before dinner.
I pictured the court room between the client and the opposing party, imagining the judge as a parent at a dinner table or wearing stripes to referee a youth soccer game. In this sense lawyers are re-enacting a feud based on who deserves more or less from the other person based on a long series of disagreements.
Each side might argue, “irreconcilable differences,” citing instances in the marriage in which each party failed to uphold something or another – varying case-to-case. Ultimately, a judge will award one side with material and priceless items, having to choose who deserves what.
Translate to youth speak, assuming the Judge is a parent, and the opposing parties are siblings (let’s call them Tommy and Suzie)
Lawyer 1 (Suzie): “Mommy, Tommy stole my iPod.”
Lawyer 2 (Tommy) : “But Mommy, Suzie wasn’t even using it and I don’t have an iPod.”
Suzie: “But it’s my iPod, it’s not my fault Tommy doesn’t have one.”
Judge (Mommy): “Tommy give Suzie back her iPod. It’s hers you can’t just take it from her without asking.”
Tommy: “Not fair…I needed the iPod so I could listen to music when I do my homework.”
Mommy: “Fine. Suzie, let Tommy use your iPod if you aren’t using it.”
Suzie: “No. It’s mine and I want to use it too.”
Mommy: “Okay give it here. From now on, you will have to split time using it – I will decide who gets it and when.”
Maybe not the best illustration but, you get the idea. Lawyers act as children, ultimately defending the decisions of their clients using various tactics to elicit guilt or prove worthiness to get what their client wants. A judge gets the unfortunate job of sitting and listening to two grown adults nitpick one another for irrelevant things in order to determine should have what based on which child or lawyer can argue better.
Funny thing is, to be a lawyer, one must spend absurd amounts of time and money for school, ultimately to become a professional arguer for one deciding authority. This child-like behavior is also present in careers which have even more impact, like in the senate.
Take New Jersey for example, our county senators have a power called senatorial courtesy. Such “courtesy” allows them to block a person to any appointed position in the same county. They can block this person from appointment for any reason without having to explain otherwise. Such behavior of disallowing a person an appointed position through this block is exercised often. Why? No one knows, because no explanation is required. In fact, apparently this behavior is done frequently through spite as one of my professors said, “Senators have elephant-like memories.”
It’s a playground hierarchy. You can refuse to allow a classmate to play with you and your friends just because he didn’t share his pudding with you. No one remembers why this classmate no longer plays with you, except for you, and maybe this classmate would be the best kicker on your kickball team but, who cares – he or she stole refused you the delight of sharing his tasty treat.
Applying such cattiness to such an important duty makes you wonder. I mean what’s more important, the good of the people or the unshared snack pack? It’s not like this classmate (or senator) did anything to negatively impact the well-being of the people, but still you don’t like him because of one meaningless incident and so, like Heidi Klum says, “You out.”
No comments:
Post a Comment