There are a lot of people shouting about illegal activity in a lot of different contexts. And regardless of the situation, one side is saying that breaking the law is acceptable, and someone else is saying that people need to stand trial and pay for their crimes.
Let's take a very simple situation, and deal with a valid law that has been in place for 25 years.
1) Person Breaks the Law.
2) Person Publicly Admits Breaking the Law.
3) Person goes to Trial for Breaking the Law.
That's called the rule of law. That's the way this country is supposed to work. If the person claims: "I was justified in doing that", fine. Just like saying "We needed to do that so people didn't die". Fine. That's called an affirmative defense. Either way, the issues are resolved at trial.
But under what circumstances should we not even bother to have the trial? No charges. No Defenses. No trial at all. When do we ignore the rule of law entirely, and just say that we don't care if the law gets broken?
2006-08-30
13:53:26
·
21 answers
·
asked by
coragryph
7
in
Law & Ethics