4 ms·
Suppose the law states that David Haroldson (or the Glorious Leader, or foreign diplomats) cannot be convicted of any crime. That's inconsistent, (perhaps) arbi
by wizzwizz4 5y ago
Suppose the law states that David Haroldson (or the Glorious Leader, or foreign diplomats) cannot be convicted of any crime. That's inconsistent, (perhaps) arbitrary, and unfair. Yet, it would be foolish to extend this conviction-immunity to everybody.
- virgildotcodes 5y agoFor the sake of consistency, wouldn’t it be desirable for the glorious leader to be subject to the same legal punishments as the masses?
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoThat's his point.
- kergonath 5y agoArguing about consistency in a system without the rule of law seems a bit foolish as well. Diplomats are a more interesting edge case. And AFAIK they can always be prosecuted and convicted in their home country.
- bluGill 5y agoThat can be abused as well. Just frame the leader for a crime and he sits in prison until it is proved that he is innocent, then do so again for a different crime. For the above assume the leader is actually glorious, though of course most leaders who are called glorious are awful (IMHO)
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI feel like that supports what I wrote.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoOr make it so glorious leader is not above the law.
- wizzwizz4 5y agoYes. Consistency is not necessarily the problem; foolish consistency is.