When did rule of law and judicial system become debatable ideas here?

[jberryhill]

48. People's opinions on the internet are not a problem

My goodness. The entire point about the "rule of law" is the longstanding recognition that mob mentality yields poor results over time.

The "rule of law" stands on its own. It's not like mobs of one sort or another would have done things differently. It's not jeopardized by people sounding off on an internet discussion forum.

If one can't sympathize with the father to any extent, then there is something wrong with one's sympathy bones.

And indeed, we have worked into the "rule of law" a mob rule component because, and I say this with long experience and trust in the law, the law can lead to some absurd results once in a while.

So, we give governors and the president extraordinary power to commute sentences, issue pardons, and in effect exercise complete personal discretion over the outcomes of the rule of law.

And that is an entirely political thing, although in practice most states have formalized procedures around the exercise of that executive power too. But at the end of the day, we do indeed have - built into the "rule of law" - a purely political safety valve that can be based solely on popular opinion.

But I wouldn't fret too much about whether other people's passions about a news story one way or the other constitute any sort of social "problem" of any great magnitude.

It's just a roundabout way of saying, "There is something wrong with people who don't see things my way."

Again, I don't know, but I would guess that a lot of the folks who would like to see mad dad acquitted ALSO completely understand that he's going to be charged with a crime, and is going to deal or take it to trial.

And there again, we use citizen juries in trials, too. Whatever them there people in the box decide is what goes - at least as to factual questions.

The "rule of law" doesn't tell you what the outcomes will be - it only provides a process. Are you saying there are people who do not believe that mad dad will be charged with a crime and given due process?

It's like the Trayvon Martin thing. I don't know what happened that night. The point was that some guy killed someone, and the police didn't charge him with anything, on facts that are, to be generous, pretty debatable. Once Zimmerman was charged and arraigned, and the process started, I was satisfied, and am satisfied, that there is going to be a trial and a verdict, rendered by people who are going to spend a whole lot more time chewing it over than I ever will.

It's not about the results, it's about the process. The process for mad dad is working fine. All of the rest of us are entitled to do whatever we want with our pitchforks and torches. Nobody is burning down the courthouse yet.

Don't panic.