Today one of my friends, with whom I do not see eye-to-eye politically, posted a complaint about trying Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. His complaint was that our criminal justice system was not meant for war criminals. Also in the news are the charges against Nidal Malik Hasan for the Fort Hood murders. There will doubtless be rumblings against the legal process he receives under the United States Code of Military Justice along the lines of “the people he killed didn’t get a lawyer.”
Whenever I hear complaints about bad people receiving due process of law, I’m reminded of the exchange between Roper and More in A Man for All Seasons about how we should give even the Devil the benefit of law, not for his sake, but for our own:
Alice: Arrest him!
More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret: He’s bad!
More: There is no law against that.
Roper: There is! God’s law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Roper: Sophistication upon sophistication.
More: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what’s legal, not what’s right. And I’ll stick to what’s legal.
Roper: Then you set man’s law above God’s!
More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact — I’m not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can’t navigate. I’m no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I’m a forester.I doubt if there’s a man alive who could follow me there, thank God.
Alice: While you talk, he’s gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
The three pillars of a worthwhile society:
= The rule of law
= Property rights
= The education of the young
Interesting comment from Parker about the pillars of society …1..the rule of law 2..property rights 3..the education of the young.
None of these are pillars are absolute values ,and always subject to interpretation or abuse according to who has power and what their agendas are.And the pillars can have a different look as we pass state lines. They are absolute only in the sense that they are always guaranteed to be negotiated and legislated constitutionally,but there has to be an issue first.
‘The rule of law’ can refer all the erroneous ‘murderers’ on Texas death row who were freed later by newer science techniques that allow re-examination of evidence and court procedures.
‘Property Rights’ end legally when you don’t pay your taxes on your property,but can also be threatened by many vested interests ,even if you do everything right.
What I have always been awed with in our legal system is where a person gets legal representation even if he can’t afford it.Without that ,many people would be cheated out of many things. I will always remember a lawyer being assigned to my parents when they didn’t understand what was going on and couldn’t afford to find out.I guess I’m one of those rare people who find it hard not to like lawyers in principle.
‘The education of the young’ can be simple issue of vouchers and taxes and historically, in my high school days , it was all about integration by state militia,and states’ rights.Education especially seems a regional frame of reference. I do think curricula is becoming a more important issue,but still subject to regionalism.
Not meant to be principles, per se, Lou – but examine how a society deals with these things and you will have a pretty fair handle on whether you would want to live in it.
Certainly every society addresses them in somewhat different ways (or several ways) – but they are always worth examining.
I would argue that all three of these ‘pillars’ occur in virtually every society, not just those you deem worthy.
The rule of law can be as simple as ‘Do what I say or suffer the consequences,’ and frequently is in totalitarian regimes.
Not all advanced societies have property rights, per se. I assume that you are only counting capitalist systems as ‘worthwhile.’
Every society educates its young in some way, even if only through folk tales. Others indoctrinate through official propagandist messages; our own system is not so far from this, and history can be merely a matter of perspective.
Personal definitions of ‘worthwhile’ are probably based on the society in which one was born and raised. Concepts such as freedom, right and wrong, and posession are formed by society itself; they are not immutable ideas.
Manfred –
Not seeking to make value judgments – as you point out, EVERY society addresses these three things in some way.
This is a framework for discussion and analysis, not any kind of recommendation.
The question is – how do societies address these things? What are the impacts?
Pure communism, for example would vest all property rights in common, at least in theory.
I am curious, though, if you can point to any society, advanced or not, that has NO expression of individual property rights – either de jure or de facto.
There always seems to be SOMETHING that a person will hold on to and say, “This is mine.”, be it a teddy bear, a shirt, or a home.