This is also one of my favorite songs of Dylan's and was unfortunately rarely played live (although it was on occasion). The content of the song is rather explicit, but looking at it in a greater context gives the song an entirely new meaning.
I first heard this song from a Dylan boxset where it was juxtaposed with "Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol" wherein a socialite commits an intentional murder and is receives virtually nothing more than a slap on the wrist. In contrast, Percy's Song is about the unintentional killing by a common person. It furthers Dylan's message of social inequality between the wealthy and lower to middle class common folk. Further, the judge in the song uses bureaucratic red-tape to end the argument to say that even if he wanted to, he couldn't change it because there is a 'process', and this process is more important than individual fairness, which Dylan uses to point out the negative repercussions of utilitarianism, and the helplessness of falling victim to it's system of "justice". Dylan uses this song to point out that the goal of the criminal judicial system is ultimately to discourage bad behavior and reform offenders, not simply to sadistically punish. In giving a sentence of 99 years for a "true" accident that may not have been avoidable (as we do not have any of the facts to that point, though it seems implied to have been unavoidable), the sentence does nothing to deter general negative behavior or specifically bad driving, but rather is grossly inconsistent with the offense (as we understand it to be). When Dylan begins to play his guitar at the end, it's not merely for Percy, but rather for all people.
It is worth noting that the judicial system is regularly accused of scapegoating people to obtain a sense of justice. In this particular example, it seems clear that Percy was responsible for these deaths, accidental or not, so to say he was scapegoated may be exaggerated, however simply because four people die does not mean that someone must go to jail. Ultimately, circumstances should dictate any judicial sentence and there should not be any kind of hard and fast rule that if X kills A-D, then X gets Y years in prison, all contributing factors aside which seems to have been the analysis that happened as the judge explained.
This is also one of my favorite songs of Dylan's and was unfortunately rarely played live (although it was on occasion). The content of the song is rather explicit, but looking at it in a greater context gives the song an entirely new meaning.
I first heard this song from a Dylan boxset where it was juxtaposed with "Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol" wherein a socialite commits an intentional murder and is receives virtually nothing more than a slap on the wrist. In contrast, Percy's Song is about the unintentional killing by a common person. It furthers Dylan's message of social inequality between the wealthy and lower to middle class common folk. Further, the judge in the song uses bureaucratic red-tape to end the argument to say that even if he wanted to, he couldn't change it because there is a 'process', and this process is more important than individual fairness, which Dylan uses to point out the negative repercussions of utilitarianism, and the helplessness of falling victim to it's system of "justice". Dylan uses this song to point out that the goal of the criminal judicial system is ultimately to discourage bad behavior and reform offenders, not simply to sadistically punish. In giving a sentence of 99 years for a "true" accident that may not have been avoidable (as we do not have any of the facts to that point, though it seems implied to have been unavoidable), the sentence does nothing to deter general negative behavior or specifically bad driving, but rather is grossly inconsistent with the offense (as we understand it to be). When Dylan begins to play his guitar at the end, it's not merely for Percy, but rather for all people.
It is worth noting that the judicial system is regularly accused of scapegoating people to obtain a sense of justice. In this particular example, it seems clear that Percy was responsible for these deaths, accidental or not, so to say he was scapegoated may be exaggerated, however simply because four people die does not mean that someone must go to jail. Ultimately, circumstances should dictate any judicial sentence and there should not be any kind of hard and fast rule that if X kills A-D, then X gets Y years in prison, all contributing factors aside which seems to have been the analysis that happened as the judge explained.