One does dislike any act of spoiling
someone's misery, but before address-
ing the inconsolable convulsions of
wretchedness abroad, on the sentenc-
ing of Paul Manafort by an ingenious
ments, one does have to satisfy one-
self on the matter of the convict's
lessons learned. For, who could have
failed to notice our Paul's indefat-
igability in perpetration of fraud,
even against the most knowing and
threatening blandishments of a plea
deal to the contrary? Even from the
supervisions of ankle bracelets and
penitential detention, how stoutly
he persisted in the pathways of his
nature, oblivious if not motivated
by the feebleness of restraint. Who
could bet, against this unblemished
conduct, he would change in any num-
ber of decades as our guest upriver?
And yet, with what higher intelli-
gence in the dispensations of juris-
prudence could his recidivist valor
meet its match in mockery of equal
justice under law, than in the hi-
larity of Judge Ellis' concession,
that not everyone would exult so
interestingly as he did, in wield-
ing his gavel with such obeisance
to our Paul's dashing harmlessness?
What credit for time served must he
have discerned, in the repeating
whiteness in his repp-striped file?
We come, then, to the matter of a
widespread misery in the land, oc-
casioned by this latest courtroom
drama's inconclusive climax, not
that courts of law are structured
to procure anything else. Even the
nattiest divorce judgment is incap-
able of undoing the array of griev-
ances. But there's nothing like a
stark departure from the guidelines
in sentencing to call into question
the poignant futility of healing an
unflappable wretch like our Paul,
to the satisfaction of anyone we'd
like to know. The trial of hapless
Paul concludes as courts of law
are bound to permit at their best.
To draw misery from this irresolu-
tion is to lie beyond law's reach.
Who has seen the scales of justice?
Nan Wang x Karolina Kuras
National Ballet of Canada
No comments:
Post a Comment