Posted by Geenius at Wrok on October 27, 1998 at 09:33:15:
In Reply to: Re: Back to hell posted by Dave on October 26, 1998 at 18:30:21:
: The confusion of 1 & 6 also can present itself when out of a need for certainty and security a 6 adheres to a code of conduct or law unthinkingly and unquestioningly. This often appears as alignment with a principle, but alignment to principles involve reason and commitment not blind adherence.
: Often in the average levels the two are hard to distinguish, but a 1 will violate a principle for a higher one and be confident in doing so. A 6 going against their code is left in anxiety and doubt. Unsure if there is even a higher law or principle to follow they will often obey the letter of the law, even when morally wrong . A 1 will obey the spirit of the law if strict adherence is wrong morally.
Last night, I accompanied my Six wife to a small-town traffic court to
defend a charge that she ran a stop sign that she didn't see. (She wasn't
even going to fight the ticket, genuinely afraid that doing so would
result in her being found guilty and facing a WORSE sentence, until I
talked her into it.) Before she was called to the bench, the deputy who
pulled her over -- one of the nicer Eights I've met, but an Eight
nonetheless -- took her out into the hall (I quickly followed) and asked
her why she was pleading not guilty. For several seconds, she was
literally unable to answer. Finally she managed to squeak out that she
didn't see the sign. So the deputy is basically offering her a plea-
bargain, letting her plead guilty to a lesser offense involving no points
against her license and unsubtly letting her know that he's doing her a
favor. He asks if she has any questions; she's mute. Finally, I speak up
and ask whether one can be judged guilty for running a stop sign when the
sign couldn't be seen. The deputy says, "Only if it's obstructed," so I
look at my wife to see if she's going to claim that it was -- but the
deputy is there, so she can't say a word.
Anyway, when she finally gets called to the bench, she starts to read from
a short deposition that I wrote for her (she was terrified that she
wouldn't know what to say or would say the wrong thing), but the judge at
one point interrupts her, which throws her off completely. She ends up
taking the plea, paying $50 but getting off without a moving violation.
Now, if it were me, I would have refused the plea-bargain -- either I
failed to stop for a stop sign or I didn't; I'm not going to plead guilty
to "parking on the pavement" when nothing of the kind happened. After the
deputy said that 14 people had run the same stop sign in an hour and a
half, I would have argued that the unusual number of people committing the
offense suggested that the sign WAS obstructed, by darkness, placement or
both -- especially after the judge commented that the stop sign had caused
a whole lot of trouble in the town. And I wouldn't have shrunk from the
deputy, the judge or the circumstance of being in court. I actually relish
those kinds of confrontations, which my wife thinks is completely insane.