SVU Episode - Plato

Plato once said, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen.” In reality, this claim holds no truth, and was proven incorrect by the SVU episode we watched in class. First of all, written laws are not all inclusive when it comes to things that are just wrong. This is where I agree with Mill when he says, some things are just plain wrong. Maybe not because they cause harm to others, or to an individual themselves, but because they just are morally unacceptable. BJ, from the episode, was morally a bad person. He talked in a crude manner, degraded women as he spoke of them as sex objects. He provoked young boys with inappropriate thoughts and  turned serious crimes, like rape, into jokes. It is not hard to see that he was clearly a bad person. Yet, he did not once break the written law. He was not the one who made Danny violate Jessie, nor did he make him take the pictures.  BJ simply provided entertainment to 200,000 young people everyday. That is obviously not a crime. Yet, his words and actions prove his moral character. On the other hand, Danny legitimately broke the written law. Not only did he trespass into Jessie’s trailer, he raped her. In the end though, I believe Danny proved to be more virtues because he admitted he was wrong and was truly sorry. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be punished for his actions, or that his guilt negates what he did to Jessie. I do believe though, the fact that he felt remorse and accepted his punishment, proves that he is a better citizen than BJ, who although he didn’t commit a crime according to the law, still continued his show with inappropriate topics, and all along, he felt no remorse for his crude actions. BJ was clearly a bad citizen, yet he upheld the written law to perfection. Danny, on the other hand broke the written law, yet proved to be a better citizen than BJ.

Plato also said, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” This statement initially seems more valid than the former, but in reality it isn’t either .  As was proven by the episode, good people do bad things. I strongly agree with Thomas Hobbes and believe that human nature is indeed bad.  I do believe good people exist, and for the most part, people are good people. But instinctively, I think people are bad and we as humans are always going to have morally unjust tendencies. Even good people make mistakes, just like Danny. I don’t think he was a bad person in the episode. He was a teenager, with a negligent, yet obsessive mother, seeking for acceptance from his peers. He made a huge mistake,  and what he did was wrong. He should be punished, but it doesn’t make him a bad person. Good people still need laws to prevent them from acting on their innate flaws.  The second part of the statement holds some truth. I do think bad people will find ways around the law, but that is where the quality of the justice and enforcement systems come in. Unfortunately, in the episode, the justice system failed because Danny's mom, was clearly a  bad women as she obsessed over Jessie, and neglected her own children, and most importantly, she broke the law, by shooting BJ. Yeah, she didn't kill him, but that was her intent. The jury took her side though, under the impression that she was a good person. In reality, that and many other things is what made her a bad person...hypocrisy. She easily got the jury's sympathy and got around the law. The episode accurately proves that bad people will find ways around the law, but this doesn’t mean that good people don’t need laws at all.