On 27Oct2024 2324, Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via tml
list) wrote:

> I'm a little puzzled wrt how anyone could possibly think that 'Laws'
> will ever or have ever superseded 'Men'.
>
> If 'men' are involved in any sort of decision-making wrt legal matters
> it will ALWAYS be "Men, not Laws".
>
> Just look at how the legal process works here on earth.
>
> Just look at all the instances where 'men' make a decision whether to
> enforce, proceed, prosecute, etc, etc, etc.
>
> It happens all the time & each & every time, from the beat cop, for
> whatever reason, overlooking infractions to prosecutors deciding whether
> & how to proceed with cases & even to the decisions of juries.
> (Note; after I served on a jury in a major case & witnessing numerous
> violations of 'The Rules' wrt juror conduct, I proceeded, over the last
> 40 years, to make inquires of anyone I encountered wrt what happened. In
> each & every case, the respective juror admitted to misconduct &, to
> varying degrees, was either dismissive or proud of their behavior. A
> jury trial really is, as I've heard more than a few times, a crap shoot)
>
> 'Men' have always & will always be the final determining factor, not 'Laws'.
>
> Can't really be any surprise there.

Of course, but there is a difference between having a law that says
"Member worlds shall not use nuclear weapons, except when invaded by
non-Imperial states" (for example) and a system of courts that, however
imperfectly, attempt to interpret that law impartially and having a
*custom* and 'understanding' that worlds shall not nuke each other that
is enforced, or not, at the pleasure of local sub-sector ruler.

No, the difference is not absolute, or binary, and is one of degree, but
to say that there isn't a difference between how the Imperium imposes
law (especially the 'laws of war') and how the Western world of today
does, and a difference in the underlying theory, is incorrect.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>