A Philosophical Dialogue

The Cast:
Bailiff - A burly man, his philosophical interests center mainly around people rising.
Judge - A no-nonsense ruler of his court room, he would wear a powdered wig if he could afford one.
Prosecutor - A cynical, heartless bastard. One of the few lawyers who was even before law school.
Rescartes - A brilliant man, his philosophical ideas are almost identical to those of Rene Descartes with one small twist: Rescartes is a serial killer.

BAILIFF: All rise!

JUDGE: Be seated. I understand we have an interesting case today.

PROSECUTOR: Yes, your honor. The defendant has told me he will refuse to enter a plea due to unncertainty.

JUDGE: Do I understand this correctly, Mr. Rescartes?

RESCARTES: Yes, your honor. I cannot enter a plea because I am not certain that what I am accused of doing actually happened.

JUDGE: Then you want to enter a plea of not guilty by mental defect?

RESCARTES: No, sir. I don't believe we can know whether any crime occurred.

JUDGE: A young woman is dead, Mr. Rescartes. She was stabbed. By you. In front of a priest, a nun, and a rabbi. Do you think they were lying?

RESCARTES: I do not question their honesty, sir. I question the accuracy of their perceptions.

JUDGE: All of them have 20/20 vision. You handed them your driver's license to examine after you finished, and the blood sample you provided for them matches your DNA. I hardly think you are the victim of a case of mistaken identity.

RESCARTES: I do not question that they perceived what they say they perceived, I question whether they accurately perceived what they say they perceived.

JUDGE: So, they all suffered from a delusion?

RESCARTES: Such a nasty word, delusion. I prefer to simply cast doubt on their perceptions by noting that our senses can deceive us. Something far away can appear small, but actually be large. Ipso facto, the senses cannot be trusted.

JUDGE: I fail to see the connection between the properties of light waves and the veracity of a statement by a man of the cloth.

RESCARTES: It stems from the notion that if we can determine that one of our senses might deceive us, we ought to reject all that it tells us.

JUDGE: That may be the standard you wish to use in your life, sir, but it is not the standard of this court.

RESCARTES: But it is exactly the standard of this court.

JUDGE: No, Mr. Descartes. We use the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

RESCARTES: This doubt is reasonable. It was arrived at through the use of reason!

JUDGE: Equivocate in my courtroom again, Mr. Rescartes, and I will hold you in contempt.

RESCARTES: But, your honor, how can you be certain I am even here to be contemptuous?

JUDGE: I can’t. And you can’t be sure that you are either, if I get your drift. Thus, you shouldn’t be too worried about me locking you up because you won’t be sure you’re incarcerated.

RESCARTES: That hardly seems like a fair application of my principles, your honor.

JUDGE: Tell it to the appeals court, Mr. Rescartes.

RESCARTES: But if I go to jail for this, it greatly increases the chances of a negative outcome in my civil case, sir. The parents of this girl seem to think that the fact that she ended up in an ambulance means that I owe them a hefty sum of money.

JUDGE: Ambulo ergo sum, eh?

RESCARTES (Scowling at the pun): Something of the sort. I urge you to reconsider.

JUDGE: No chance, Mr. Rescartes. Go to jail.

The judge bangs his gavel, Rescartes is taken away, and the next case on the docket is called.