There is a common logical fallacy that the crime statistics reflect in some way themorality of the society. STOP HERE AND THINK TWICE! The crime statistics reflectfirst to which extent the human behaviour may be considered to be criminal, i.e. thesefigures mirror the criminalization of certain activities. We can legalize prostitution or theretail sales of alcohol in Sweden and then statistics of crime will look different, notnecessarily better. We can change the definition of the crimes; a broader definition willincrease the statistics at least in the first period after the amendment. A narrowerdefinition and a harder burden of proof for the prosecution will decrease the statistics, butattention not the criminality. The most fallacious part of the statement is to pass by thefact that an increase in the statistics can often reflect a more effective enforcement. Thepolice and the other authorities have invested lots of public money in a betterment of theenforcement. This has nothing to do with the morality of the people living in thatjurisdiction.

Think about the taxation for instance! One can define taxation as a very moral activity, itis after all about sharing and giving to the people in need, but also as an immoral activitybecause a person is dispossessed by his/he property, property which has been obtainedcompletely in a legal manner. Of course that some crimes appear to be absolutelyhorrifying and undoubtedly immoral, but you as an outsider, as a second hand listener,you will never know the whole story. Therefore the biblical story is still wise: Don'tthrow any stones on nobody! You might be less innocent than that person.

Another short reflection about the truth and the search for truth and the idea that theultimate truth is God! To me this statement is related with the first the biblical advice'Don't throw stones!'. The socially constructed truth is always relative and it serves somecommon purposes. Panem et circenses, bread and circus/games, this is what it is served.Now-a-days the circus is more Hollywood constructed than live. The main idea is thatyou do not witness the truth, we are only told the 'truth' and if the truths being told fitwith your frame of values, they are going to be accepted as reality. If they come inconflict with this frame of values, you will reject them and start to search about the 'real'truth and so on. It sounds strange but in order to provide justice and be impartial, youhave to forget about your own cultural bias or moral bias and judge as to the law, not asto the morality.

The values of the society can not be alienated from the law, the law comes as a reflectionof these values, but in the moment of becoming LAW, it becomes the main point ofreference for the judge. The relation between law and moral values is a very complex oneindeed.

I would like you to ponder a bit on the ideas of law and moral in society based on relativetruths. What is the role of moral for the law maker or for the law enforcer? Do moral haveany significance for a judge?