On 13 Dec 2001, at 11:30, Craig M. Lalley wrote:

> Who here believes that our country uses the "rule of law"?
>

Virtually every Western European nation including the North
American States, Australia, New Zealand, and a good portion of
the rest of the world uses the Rule of Law.

> Who here even knows what "rule of law" means?
>

The Rule of Law is constraint of public officials by statute; explicit
and public statement of all laws and regulations that the citizenry
are subject to; open discourse on the formulation and adoption of
such laws and regulations; equal and open access to an impartial
adjudicator when accused of violation of those laws and
regulations; and consistent and fair due process for all accused of
crimes.  The purpose of which is to create within the citizenry a
high degree of trust in the political and legal workings of their state
and thereby forestall recourse to personal vengeance and the
violence and social instability which accompany such private
actions.

> The "rule of law" means two things;

No, it means one thing.  Trust in ones fellow citizens to do the right
thing for all.

The Rule of Law does not prevent criminal acts or private 'justice', it
only marginalizes them.  The Rule of Law does not guarantee
perfection in form or execution, it is impossible to for any system
involving mortals to be perfect.  The power of great wealth distorts
all that it is applied against, including justice.  The object of the
rule of law is not to be perfect, only to mitigate against the
excesses of a few that can destroy a state built for the many.

Consider the examples of high-profile cases of criminal justice that
are widely held to reveal the fundamental hypocrisy of 'the Rule of
Law'.  Why are they so notorious? Is it not because our
expectation is different than the outcome?  Is this not a salutary
revelation that the rule of law is so widely esteemed that even
notational affronts to our sensibilities on the subject are met with
outrage?  Is this not the surest sign that we do indeed enjoy and
demand the rule of law from those whom we choose to govern?

The rule of law ultimately rests and depends solely on its subjects'
willingness to uphold and submit to it.  When sharp practice by
public officers in the courts or on the streets evoke howls of
outrage from those subjects then you can be sure that the rule of
law, however imperfect, is still working. The higher the expectations
of the public then the closer to prefection the application of the
Rule of Law will attain.  To demean its value because it does not
meet a single narrowly defined view of performance is to reduce its
protection for everyone.  Cynicism is the enemy of justice.

Regards,
Jim
---     e-mail is NOT a secure channel
James B. Byrne                mailto:[log in to unmask]
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *