🤔 the impermanence defense
- a buddhist lawyer defends someone accused of, say, murder, by arguing re: impermanence
- "He is not that man who did that thing. Yes, he looks similar. Yes, if you followed "him" from that moment 6 months ago to now, you would end up physically beside this man in front of you. But he is not him. He doesn't identify with him, or any previous incarnation of him.
- (the accused:) I would not kill X. I cannot. X does not exist. I have no interest of killing anyone.
- Raises the question of "why" we incarcerate
- to dissuade others in the future
- to protect others from probability of future crime
- to restitute damages
- ...
Update 2022-12-02
- your honour, my client could not have committed the murder.
- it's been over a year since the crime, and any cells that were present have died and been replaced
- at most, my client has inherited the property of the murderer. But our laws are clear about debts and crimes not being passed down
- Also, who are we to say what my client may do in the future. Are we saying there is no free will?