To hell with the rule of law - off with their heads!

Mortmain

In the course of numerous discussions with various persons not versed in legal academia, I have had a growing realisation that many of the public do not care for the rule of law, this has left me wondering if we should rip it up and start again.

For example, in the aftermath of the whole statutory rape fiasco, it seems the general consensus was "I don't care about the legal reasoning and the whole 'laws cannot be retrospective' malarky - the guy should be locked up at all costs"

Now it has always been drummed into law students that the law must be clear and precise so as to istill a degree of legal certainty and to prevent those in power from corrupting absolutely (of course, in this country the jury is still out with regards to the effictiveness of the latter point) but really, if laws governing socety are reflective of broader social values, and the public at large would rather a "lock them up at all costs" approach, should we not tear up the book and start afresh?

Now, i am more tan aware of the pitfalls of this approach, but whilst trying to point this out to many people, they simply answer that if this approach sees guilty persons walking free, the approach is wrong - plain and simple.

Any discussion on the point is appreciated - I'm off now to bank my head of a number of brick walls.

M

seamus

The problem with emotive responses is that they've rarely had time to think the consequences of such a decision through, or of the wider implications of making this decision. Although it may seem that the public are baying for blood - it's a short-term wish. Given time, most will cool off or think about further.

You'll find that emotion crumbles quite quickly under simple logic*. As soon as you point out the "buts" and "what ifs" of their response, most people will realise that it merits more thought than "off with their heads", it's only a minority of stalwarts who'll remain subborn despite the obvious consequences.

*The most effective means of making someone question themselves are: "What if it was your father/mother/sister/brother/husband/wife/child", and "What if they were falsely convicted"

Thirdfox

Maybe less sensationalist journalism (or just a balanced view in an article) i.e. locking up the guy seems a good idea but to do so we might as well rip up our Constitution in the process... then perhaps laypeople will give a second thought.

Another solution would be totalitarian rule (as long as I'm the dictator )

Dave!

I think that the main problem with the law is that it doesn't cater or allow for common sense. Everything is so structured, every word can be analysed and argued over and interpretted differently that it has to be. But people get frustrated with this.

For instance, there was the case a few years ago about the judge (can't remember his name) who was accused of possessing child porn, the Gardaí raided his computer, found the porn, and because the warrant was out of date, he walks around as an innocent man.

This is the type of thing that has people like myself incredibly p*ssed off!

Now I know how important the law is (and indeed consider anarchists to be f*cking idiots!!!), but then again, in situations like this, I find myself thinking "the vigis would sort this f*cker out"!

I think that's the main problem -- when we all know someone is guilty as sin, and the evidence even tells us that (OJ Simpson?), yet the law can't put them away.