THE ORIGINATOR OF THR CRIME

Today I was told a story, one I would love to share with you and also my reaction to it.

A certain company owns a gaming center, on one occasion some kids came in to have fun very early. Unfortunately, the person in charge of that session wasn't around(he arrived at work late) so the cashier called another staff working in another department of the company to assist in setting up the game for the kids. 

Shortly, the children were done with their game and were about to leave. They looked for the cashier to pay for the game but she was nowhere to be found so they paid to the person who assisted in setting up the game, in turn this person ate the money (against company's policy) and was audacious enough to tell that to the cashier when she came back to her duty post. 

Who among the three persons involved do you think deserves to be punished? Is it the gaming officer who came late, which made the cashier call the guy in another department for assistance? Or is it the cashier who called the guy in another department for assistance and still left duty post thereby making it possible for the guy from another department to take the money? Or is it the guy from another department who was asked for assistance and later collected and ate company's money?

Initially, when I was told this story I was flummoxed. It was too hard to tell who's entirely at fault, yet I quickly concluded that the guy from the other department was at fault. To make things clearer I was told to imagine a case scenario, where a person, gives his clothes to a laundry person to wash and iron and on his way he saw his exact dress on someone else body, who does he hold responsible? The laundry guy or the guy on the street?

My response to the second story was that the laundry guy was to be held responsible and after the story teller's explanation I saw the similarities between the two stories and how biased I was at the first story. 

The guy who ate company's money was not oblivious of the rules same way the random guy wearing someone else clothes was not oblivious of the fact that it wasn't his yet they both aren't the originator of the crime. 

Everybody gets what they deserve. If I wasn't told the second story, I would've gone with the idea that it's not fair to give severe punishment to the cashier and gaming officer and lesser punishment to the guy who actually ate the money. 

This taught me that my perspective was very limited. When you view things from a linear angle there's a tendency of being biased. 

How far you see is dependent on how broad your view is. 

@favvy_Okwans🖤.