Rectify 2.8: The Plea Bargain and the Smart Phone

Hey, have you ever been involved in a plea bargain for, say, a speeding ticket?  Heres's how it works:

You're pulled over for speeding, let's say, 20 miles over the speed limit.  You come to court, ready to plead Not Guilty.   An attorney or a police officer pulls you aside, and says, if you're willing to plead guilty to a lesser offense - speeding only 10 miles over the limit, or driving with a broken tail light - we'll put aside the original charge.  Never mind whether you were guilty or not in the first place, or - if you're inclined to accept the offer - that you never had a broken tail light in your life.  If you accept the offer, everything's all wrapped up for you. No further prosecution on the original charge.  And it doesn't matter in the slightest if you're guilty or not.

Crazy, isn't it?  But this in effect is what Daniel is being offered.  A lot worse, actually, because he has to admit that he killed Hannah - just as you'd have to admit that you were driving with a broken tail light, even if you weren't, in the speeding example - but the dynamics are the same.  Guilt or innocence doesn't matter.  It's all wrapped up, forever, once you accept the terms.   It was therefore gratifying and right that Daniel in effect rejected the plea deal offer.

Several other profound and excellent threads in Rectify 2.8.

The conversation between the current sheriff, Daggett, and the previous sheriff was priceless.  It's good to see Daggett settling in to his role as protector of the truth.   And the revelation that George came to see the previous sheriff after the law had dealt with Daniel is very significant.   In addition to committing suicide, we now have another reason to see George as a crucial character in this story.  Let's assume George came to see Daggett's predecessor and committed suicide for the same reason.   Is that reason because he was the killer, or did he just feel overwhelmed with guilt because he let Daniel go to prison for a crime George knew Daniel did not commit?

On that score, it was good to finally hear Daniel's recorded confession.   No wonder the original sheriff thought that maybe it was coerced.   Sure didn't sound even the least bit convincing.

The other profound moment was the conversation Daniel had with Tawney.  It looks as if there's perhaps some closure in their sudden relationship, with Daniel speaking from his heart to her.  I'm hoping Daniel can find someone he can relate to like this in a subsequent season, who is not married to his step-brother.   In the meantime, you can't beat their conversation as far touching points in philosophy and religion that would have made Thomas Aquinas proud.

And the series continues to excel in memorable lines pertaining to someone who has been locked away from the world for two decades.  The standout in 2.8 is Daniel opining about a pay phone - which indeed, as he says, is rare to find - that he likes talking on a phone that isn't smarter than he is.   Classic media observation!  (For more on the evolution of smart phones, see my New New Media.)

See also Rectify 2.1: Indelible ... Rectify 2.2: True Real Time ... Rectify 2.3: Daniel's Motives ... Rectify 2.4: Jekyll and Hyde ... Rectify 2.6: Rare Education ... Rectify 2.7: The Plot Thickens

And see also Rectify: Sheer and Shattering Poetry ... Rectify 1.5: Balloon Man ... Rectify Season 1 Finale: Searingly Anti-Climactic

 
another kind of capital punishment

#SFWApro

get Rectify season 2 on 

Dummy in the HOV Lane

So, I just got back from a drive in an HOV lane, and was laughing because of a story I saw a few months ago, about a guy on Long Island, NY who was arrested for driving with a dummy in the HOV lane...

Is there anyone who's driven in or near an HOV lane who hasn't thought of that? Our daughter used to have an oversized penguin. Many's the time we put a straw hat on its head, and left it to guard the car, in the driver's seat, in a mall parking lot.

The guy on Long Island had a more lifelike figure - a CPR practice-mannequin with a moustache and hair and everything. And this got me wondering - what exactly is the difference for HOV purposes between a life-like dummy or a very quiet person sitting next to you? Or maybe a sleeping person, or a not very bright person you might call a dummy. Come on - we've all driven with such dummies, from time to time.

I guess a quiet person could start talking, a sleeper could awaken, and a dullard could say something intelligent every now and then - even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while, as they say in the South (at least, that’s what someone who isn’t a dummy once told me) - and this sets the tongued-tied and the shy, the sleeper and the dullard, apart from dummies, and makes them lawfully countable as a passenger for HOV (high occupancy vehicle) purposes.

Ok, so how about a dead person? I know, a cop would likely pull you over if you had someone dead sitting next to you, anyway. But if it wasn't your fault, could you still be cited for an HOV violation?

I'm not sure, but I have a feeling you would not.

So what's wrong with a dummy?

The alert cop who nabbed the daring Long Island driver said the passenger's head was tilted in a strange way ... hmmm ... stranger than a drunk's? Maybe the driver has a case against the company that made the mannequin - "I thought it was supposed to be lifelike, your Honor! They never tested the neck!"

But, getting back to drunks, sleepers, idiots, and quiet people - I think maybe the key is that the passenger has to be alive. But is the key, then, humanly alive? How about a dog, an ape ... a big snake plant? (I also read recently that someone discovered a band of chimps making spears - seriously. Ok, for me this means they are definitely human enough to count as passengers in HOV lanes. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that chimps are subject to road rage, too.)

On other hand, chimps can't really talk, and some dummies can – no, I don't mean people who are dummies, I mean ventriloquist's dummies...

Ah! Long Island man, here's your defense, if it’s not too late: bring your dummy to court with you. When it comes time to plead your guilt or innocence, have the dummy make the plea.

If the judge can't see your mouth move, you should be found not guilty - assuming the judge is not a dummy.