The law should be applied, but selectively

In theory, we agree that the law should be applied. In practice, many wish for this to be done selectively, based on certain personal criteria. Former international footballer Dănuţ Lupu was sentenced to 7 months in prison for driving a vehicle without a license. Immediately, the question arose, "But what did he do that was so significant?" Great athletes, coaches, professional commentators, and other uninvolved speakers rushed to the defense of the former player, who, by the way, does not understand at all what is happening to him, neither now nor on other occasions when he was deprived of his freedom, because this is not his first "misunderstanding." He admits that he didn't have a license but is surprised that he is being sentenced, especially since he didn't kill anyone or cause harm. Others, like him, say the same, enchanted by his dribbling skills from the time when he was active. I admit that in the 1990s, I attended all the matches in the capital in which Lupu played, whether for Rapid or Dinamo, but I still hold the idea that "one thing is one, and another thing is another."

For the sake of a dribble, a record, a handsome face, remarkable professional achievements, or family ties, we are willing to suspend the application of the law. Then we wonder, when there is no sympathy involved, why things are heading in the wrong direction. The selective application of the law breeds monsters, and these monsters create victims, not only on the roads but in other ways as well. Unfortunately, the desire to apply the law haphazardly is not only observed among those who watch from the sidelines but also among those who are paid to enforce it, and this does immense harm, leaving the impression that everything is a massive lottery, a matter of luck, whether you have it or not, you curse your fate.

Scientists still argue that natural selection is good, but double standards are not.