Thread by @SuneAuken

I have to tell you this little story about the best answer to the worst question I ever witnessed. It was two minute masterclass in educating stupidity. If only I could ever be that good. This is not strictly #ForeniscLinguistics, but it is something with language and law. 1/

https://twitter.com/SuneAuken/status/1351163687457980418

I was at a public lecture about the concept of justice in the Danish legal system, and the lecturer was the Danish public Ombudsman at the time. Quite possibly the most silver-tongued person I ever met. 2/

Now, the function of the Ombudsman is literally the rule of law. And the Ombudsman's primary purpose is to protect citizens from legal, administrative, and broadly speaking public overreach. As such he is, of course [sigh], universally detested by the tough-on-crime crowd. 3/

At this particular occasion the crowd was represented in the audience by a person who was quite agitated at the idea of letting criminals out of jail after they had served their time. 4/

That person - I have happily forgotten whether it was a man or a woman - indignantly asked whether it was right to let people out of jail if they just went out and did some more criming. Because, obviously, once people have committed a crime they should be locked up forever. 5/

My mind jumped into "smack this person very hard" mode, and had juridical overreach been my actual field of work the feeling would have been worse yet.

Not so the ombudsman. 6/

A broad smile opened on his face as if he had received the best question ever. And he said something like this (it's decades ago, don't whip me on the details). 7/

"You are absolutely right. This is of course a deep worry, and the more so because the correctional system as one of its most important societal functions has the obligation to protect ordinary citizens from crime. 8/

... So we have looked carefully into this, and what we find is that no matter how harshly we punish - you know length of conviction or severity of incarceration - the rate of people who commit new crimes - what we call the "recidivist rate" - is approximately 50%. 9/

... But there is one important caveat: Approximately when people turn 30 they tend to stop committing crimes. What we call "the criminal energy" tends to leave them, so afterwards there may be reasons to keep them locked up, but public protection isn't terribly important. 10/

... (With an afterthought): That is, there was this long-time convict who at the age of 76 was allowed out to attend a funeral, and he stole a moped, and they only caught him in the northern end of Sweden. 11/

... Now I'm not much for admitting it, but in a limited sense I have to say that I almost admire the continued criminal required to be that person." 12/

And everyone - including the person who had put the question were laughing and enjoying themselves at the idea of this elderly and utterly harmless man on his stolen moped evading the law to drive through most of Sweden. 13/

I don't think the questioner ever sensed how thorough the demolition had been, but for me: every time the argument comes up, the old man and "his" moped follows and it is immensely calming. 13/

As a teacher I have never been able to fully learn that move, but I sometimes manage to remember that the most important thing about answering a question is always to make the person asking it smarter, and a smackdown rarely achieves that. 14/14