ABSTRACT
Sometimes some things are done the wrong way, and then next it is time, high time at times, to single out offenders, give them a sermon (shout, or even shriek at them) and sentence them, with or without some or other kind of punishment. With offenders caught in the act (leading to ostensive proof of misdemeanour), there may be no big problems of evidence and proof. But given circumstantial evidence only, evasive answers may be expected. Broken crockery may point to a certain family member more or less renowned for unwittingly destroying things. But this potential offender may well deny that he did it, fearful as he may be of the shameful consequences (and worse) of admitting his ‘tort’ and unwilling to experience feelings of guilt and associated sentiments of inferiority and shame. This is (probably rather an unwelcome) part and parcel of daily and not so daily (legal) life. Actors’ willing cooperation in establishment of evidence and proof is to be expected only if such actors are to gain by it. Normal people are not shameful of doing good, only of doing wrong (apart from that rather unwelcome category of people lacking any kind of guilt and shame).
