Abandoning the Rule of Law -- when do we not even bother having a trial?

I think the circumstance would be if the "majority" of society determined that they simply choose to ignore the offense. The rule of law only applies to the extent, as was pointed out in a previous answer, that the law can be enforced AND the extent that the people grant the government it's authority. The government only effectively exists at the consent of the governed. Societal norms dictate that for safety and prosperity's sake we follow the rule of law. But once societal norms are removed, changed, or abondoned, anything goes. Everything would be "legal" or more truly, not illegal. How far from that nightmare do you feel we are today?

lol, you think we that didn't go to law school know this? Bottom-up-top-down-prcessing-with information-hiding comes to mind.

But stupid me will take a stab at nothing I have direct knowledge of.

There are two kinds of trials.

Trial by jury.

Trial by fire.

Trial by fire is when you have to guess an event before it happens right after the question was asked to see if 'nature' or God would bear witness that you were innocent and telling the truth. Of course the outcome could be controlled and often was.

Skipping a trial would mean without the above two at all such as vigilatism. Or law of the jungle. I don't even think your talking about a summation trial where a verdict is made on it's face. Anarchy or mob mentality and rule for summary justice. Hitler allowed summary execution of the Jews.

Now your model leads me to ask, what happens if a defendant maintains his innocence and the case is adjucated either way I would think that is still the rule of law even though it directly conflicts with statement #2.

1) Person Breaks the Law.

2) Person is charged/indicted and enters a plea at arraingment.

3) Person is convicted or aquited and the case is tried by a court of competent jurisdiction.

That to me sounds closer than your model. But the difference between me and you is you have a law degree and it's too late at night for me to wikipedia it out.

Again, I don't know how far down in law school your talking to have studied this technical question. I see you've worked for Microsoft and read your resume and I'm sure your looking for a specific answer but what your going to get are people like me just trying to reason it out.

As related to immigration there's really only one point, either the defendant can prove he's here legally or not. If your talking about 'catch and release' where illegals were just arrested or detained and summarily deported, I don't know the technical term for that. What we want to do is reaffirm that illegal entry is a FELONY because of the gravity of the issue such that anything less will have no effect at all.

I do know that no one can survive a technical term contest when each are throwing out words that the other is out of their experience and expertise.

By the way, I wanted to comment on your Amendment A, but I don't know how to post on your 360 or email you.

n0witrytobeamused has covered several cases--you die, you steal a sticky note, you open your liquor store on Sunday (at least in some places!).

When Richard Nixon was about to resign the presidency, he fretted over whether he would be charged with crimes related to the Watergate scandal. All that worry went away when President Ford pardoned him for "all offenses" during his presidency. The reasons for the pardon were:

- a trial, if necessary, could not begin for a year or more;

- in the meantime, the tranquility that was restored (with Nixon's resignation) would be irreparably lost;

- "the prospects of such a trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States."

Although not everyone agreed with the pardon, beyond some grumbling it went unchallenged. So what can be abstracted about the "propriety" of that pardon?

- There is a "greatest good for the greatest number" argument, namely, that stirring up controversy and divisiveness throughout the country was not "worth" bringing a possible criminal to justice.

- There is a "he's already paid the price" argument--the "penalty" of losing the presidency was such sufficient punishment that criminal proceedings might raise questions of a lack of "propriety."

I wonder what would have ensued if lives had been lost as a direct result of criminal activity by Nixon. (Already lives had been ruined, families destroyed, men were in prison.) Would the "tipping point" have moved toward suffering divisiveness in the country to bring a man to justice?

In more recent history, I can't help but think of the day of the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial, when many Blacks cheered ecstatically at the result, while many whites went into a state of shock. Popular opinion among many Blacks went to the idea that the proceedings were unfair, if not outright racist. Let's rewind back to the grand jury. What if the makeup off that panel had resembled the trial jury? What if they had listened to weeks of droning testimony about "flying DNA" and misfitting gloves. Would there have been a tipping point where the sense of "injustice" over the proceedings would have made even an indictment seem wrong?

More generally, what about proceedings where civil rights violations, bias, or other improprieties on the part of police or prosecutors are alleged? Where is the tipping point where we conclude that a fair trial is not possible, even when it appears that crimes have been committed? When then-Illinois Governor George Ryan commuted the death sentences of every inmate on death row, his reasoning was that the "system is broken." If it can be broken for the purposes of sentencing someone to death, perhaps it can be broken for many other cases as well. The rule of law can only be well-respected and effective if the system is not "broken." I should mention that I'm aware of the rights of appeal and that those are a necessary part of the legal process.

Briefly, I'll mention a situation where I think the rule of law should indeed hold: the President is not above the law. Although he has broad powers (including aspects of his role as Commander In Chief), where Congress has passed laws respecting his actions as President, they can't legally be ignored (although, as outlined above, exceptions have been made when the President has already been "punished" in other ways). President Clinton was subjected to legal proceedings while a sitting President (in the Paula Jones case), proving that the Oval Office is no bastion of protection against the laws of the US.

First, the prosecuting attorney makes these decisions all the time (District Attorney, US Attorney, etc.). When making a charging decision (not only what charge to prosecute, but whether to prosecute at all), the prosecuting attorney not only determines whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the defendant (without which he is ethically bound to not bring charges), but whether it is in the communities best interest to charge and prosecute. Further, even after charging, the DA may drop a case (it is almost always within his discretion. The easiest example is the motorist who does not have insurance as required, he shows up at court with proof of insurance. In many instances, the DA will (but is not required to) dismiss the charge. The purpose of the law has been fulfilled, and no further punishment is necessary.

In an indirect fashion, even this discretion is not unfettered, as the voters may elect another DA if they become dissatisfied with his refusal to prosecute certain crimes (or individuals who allegedly commit such crimes). Thus, the process is still within the rule of law.

Even when charged, the defendant can argue that the crime is stupid and should not apply to his particular act (even while admitting that he committed acts that satisfy the elements of a crime). For example, a man kills a man who he knows raped his young child. While he admits that he killed the victim, he explains his act. The jury will not be instructed on "jury nullification," but any jury can come back with a not guilty verdict for any reason -- including because it believes that, in the particular circumstances, the person should not be convicted of the crime.

Still, it is within the rule of law (and jury nullification rarely works), that these events occur.

It is essential that the rule of law be applied in all cases. In the case of public officials (corruption, executive acts in contravention of the law, etc.), the courts and the possibility of a criminal conviction form an important check on the power of our leaders.

Back in the good old days, when life was more simple, there were many lawless communities. They, too, had a set of "laws" which comprised of violent feuds, vengence, and shoot-outs on Main Street. It is only the knowledge that our system of checks and balances, and our laws are enforced fairly, that our freedoms can be protected.

Never. The only reason alleged illegal activity should not be prosecuted is if an investigation concludes that there was no illegal activity.

But there should always be an investigation into allegations, and if there is any truth to them, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

If we look the other way, the concept of justice as an equal force for everyone is destroyed.

It should be the same for everybody - you break the law, you get a ticket to court on the defense side of the table.

I could not reply to your email for some reason.

You are correct. After searching, I found this and some other places where it explains what actually happened. The US can go in under a sanction from the UN. I remember when 9/11 happened though and something was immediately issued to Congress and passed unanimously. I don’t know now what that was but I was under the impression it was a declaration of war. It seems we are not going to war against a Country or Nation, but against a faction within the Country or Nation. Thanks for the information.

you fairly do no longer decide for a certificates to homeschool. some mothers and fathers do fairly properly. Others do no longer. There are no longer virtually such countless right here in Canada as interior the U. S.. There are some in our neighbourhood. One kin makes library visits area of their curriculum. mom sits and reads mutually as the youngsters run wild (they are around 9 and 11 years previous.) They play pc video games and not in any respect open a e book. i'm wondering whether the bright day and night one on one is in simple terms too lots for some mothers and fathers so the very stable intentions start to slip and the mothers and fathers never fairly comprehend how far they have strayed from their unique plan. i'm able to properly comprehend why human beings homeschool. I pass over my infants while they circulate back to college. I trust the faster poster that coaching your infants that they are greater acceptable because of the fact they are homeschooled is telling them outright lies. I surely have seen extreme reaching infants in the two faculties and homeschooling. The unusual element is a extreme reaching public college baby will generally in simple terms assist you to already know they do properly at college. A extreme reaching homeschooler will in the present day assist you to already know that they are 2 or 3 grades above infants attending public faculties.

Good question!

While I agree with where it seems you are going, let's play devil's advocate to make things interesting. Let's pretend that I am Kim Jong-il; here's what I would say:

1) There's really no such thing as "justice", there's only state-sponsored revenge.

2) There also is the need to suppress people with dangerous ideas, or who endanger stability in other ways.

3) The SOLE PURPOSE of a trial, to me (dictator for life), is to convince my subjects that I am not ruling by whim.

4) If my subjects have no other information source, and I haven't done anything to them (lately) then they will acquiesce to my methods.

5) If they are sufficiently terrified, then I don't need any trials at all.

As long as the general public fears me enough, I can keep this up. Once there is a crack in my guise of invulnerability, someone may challenge me, so I need to be paranoid and catch anyone who doesn't fear me. Now I've got a self-perpetuating but stable situation, until I die.

----

Of course, If I am not Kim Jong-il, then I can only do this if my subjects have absolutely no symphathy for my victims.

The Amerikan legal system has become a corporation for the rich. What this entails is that they make as many laws as possible to squeeze money out of the classes and certain sectors within the classes. Which also entails the lower you are within a class the more it is going to hurt you in the wallet. If the system has any reason to believe that there has been a crime committed they will not hesitate to throw a person in jail. This goes against the way the legal system was suppose to be designed in that a person is innocent until proven guilty. This is not occurring in Amerikan society in which a person has to prove his innocence, unless of course you are rich. A rich person can post bond far more easily than a poor person and pay any fine that has been given innocent or guilty if the law has not proven just.

Let me answer you coragryph by asking this question:

In times of war, can the president (say GWB) imprison someone indefinitely, with no access to the courts or to anyone in the outside world?That's the power that the Bush administration has claimed once again. Its actions have drawn scant attention or protest. Yet they lie far outside the accepted bounds of constitutional democracy. In short, Fighting Terrorism Need Not Abandon Rule of Law.