There was a story in the journals of a poor prisoner in a Western police-court who was told he might be released if he would pay his fine. He had no money, he had no friends, but he took his flute out of his pocket and began to play, to the surprise, and, as it proved, to the delight of all the company; the jurors waked up, the sheriff forgot his duty, the judge himself beat time, and the prisoner was by general consent of court and officers allowed to go his way without any money. And I suppose, if he could have played loud enough, we here should have beat time, and the whole population of the globe would beat time, and consent that he should go without his fine.
From Perpetual Forces, an essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Today, I saw some responses to a post about pot delivery and how a white male was depicted as happily and openly, earning money from the service. Several expressed disgust that while thousands of people were imprisoned, fined, or otherwise had their lives destroyed as a result of minor offenses related to pot, this advertisement suggested that pot delivery was no big deal.
The story Emerson told above would likely not be repeated today - money is demanded and not service. If a person goes to jail because they cannot afford a fine, does that justify denying that person liberty? In Emerson's example there was pity for the prisoner because he had no money or friends - but could play a mean flute. Was the community adequately compensated?
There is a beautiful vision here - even reminiscent of a soft drink commercial about teaching the world to sing - that if given a chance to give what that prisoner could afford without giving up liberty, the whole world would agree to accept that.
In a conversation the other day, the discussion was about justice versus law. I am again reminded that they are not always the same thing.