What the Court Pretended Not to See - 1/25/2026

Summary

The sentence "We do not recognize the influence of one's upbringing" in a certain judgment appears on the surface to advocate equality under the law. However, underneath, it seems to reduce long-standing religious domination and the breakdown of family relationships to "a level of instability that can be overcome through one's own efforts." It's like looking at a cracked levee and declaring, "The water overflowed because of the last finger that touched it." When this perspective is fixed, the distorted way the oppressed see things is officially registered as "error" in society.

Keywords

Trial, religious abuse, responsibility, cognitive distortion, social convention

Quiet news and a cracked levee

The evening news was as monotonous as ever. The announcer was reading the verdict on the shooting death of a former prime minister. The words "life imprisonment" appear in letters at the bottom of the screen, and just above it, in small letters, "The influence of one's upbringing will not be recognized."

Seeing this, many people will probably think: "No matter what the circumstances, one should never kill someone. It's obvious."

No one would deny that feeling itself. No one would doubt that the flow of water that broke the levee must be stopped.

But let's pause here and consider one thing.

Tiny cracks had been appearing in the levee long before the incident. Continuous donations within the household, the household finances crumbled, and the family fell apart. Over a long period of time, in the name of religion, the message "there is no escape" was imprinted in people's hearts.

And yet, the verdict focuses only on "the finger that last touched the levee." The history of the cracks is mentioned as background, but it is not at the center of the judgment.

At that moment, what do we call "obvious"? The quiet news screen leaves this blurred as it moves on to the next topic.

A History of Cracks Ignored

When cracks appear in a levee, they don't happen all at once.

It starts with small conversations within the family. "If you believe, you'll be saved," "Money is proof that you're being tested." Even as their wallets dwindle, they tell themselves, "This is necessary."

Eventually, the family's finances begin to decline, and their options for further education and employment become fewer. Their connections with those around them weaken, and the belief that "I can't survive if I leave this place" only grows stronger.

From the outside, this process may seem like a series of choices. But for those on the inside, it's a journey in which options themselves are gradually lost.

When a court ruling states that "the influence of one's upbringing is not recognized," that long journey is lumped together and referred to as "circumstances."

On the surface, this process = listing the circumstances = reflecting them in the judgment.

These are discussed as circumstances, but they are not central to the judgment.

This way of organizing things is pleasant to hear. Saying, "I understand the background, but a crime is a crime" appears to be both strict and kind.

But let me ask one question here.

Can saying "I understand" while not changing anything truly be called understanding?

Looking at a cracked levee and saying, "I understand why it's cracked," but not repairing it and blaming only "the fingers that last touched it." This is convenient for the levee manager, because it means neither those who built the levee nor those who turned a blind eye can be blamed.

A system that pushes all the responsibility onto one person

Now, let's think about the people around the levee.

The religious group that built their house on top of the crack, the politicians who have turned a blind eye to it for years, the government officials who have watched from afar, and the people who lived their lives unaware of what was going on.

When a court ruling says, "We do not recognize the influence of one's upbringing," how does the arrow of responsibility move?

Distorted responsibility = Individual alone ÷ No context

The arrows converge on a single perpetrator. The hand that continues to crack the levee is pushed out of the picture.

This is convenient for religious groups, as their long-standing requests for donations and pressure on families are relegated to the "distant background" of someone's outburst.

This is also convenient for politicians, as the judgment barely mentions the connection to religious groups or the delay in regulation.

But what about those who have been forced to walk across the cracks?

A long-formed "perspective of the world" is transformed into "a matter of the individual's heart" by a single sentence in the judgment.

The saying, "No matter how difficult things may be, normal people don't kill others" spreads quietly.

On the surface, these words are true. But another meaning creeps in.

"I killed you because you weren't normal."

In this way, the distorted vision created by religious control and the breakdown of the family is treated as "a wavering that could have been overcome with effort."

The cracks in the levee are ignored. All that's visible is the last finger that touched it.

The outcome chosen by a society that ignores the cracks

In the short run, this way of sorting things out calms society.

People feel reassured when they feel that "a harsh verdict has been handed down" and "the law is working properly." The levee has broken, but the "culprit" has been caught and punished.

But the cracks themselves remain. Control in the name of religion continues, albeit in different forms. In our homes, our wallets, our hearts.

And so, the sentence in the verdict quietly declares:

"No matter how many cracks there are, the only one to blame is the finger that last touched the levee."

When people hear these words over and over again, a single idea takes root within them.

"No matter how cornered he was, the fact that he couldn't hold on was a sign of his own weakness."

On the surface, these words praise autonomy, but underneath, they serve as a shield to protect the person who created the crack.

The hand that created the crack will continue to touch the levee.

Because the verdict has taught us that when the levee breaks, the only ones to blame are always the fingers that last touched it.