How we like to pat ourselves on the back and trick ourselves into thinking that while our legal system may not be perfect it is at least 'just', at it's very heart. This is wrong. At it's very heart, it is fundamentaly unjust. This is a quite different argument from my saying that the system never calls it right. It does and it can. When the system convicted (example), Peter Sutcliffe, clearly the system got that right, and justice was served on Peter Sutcliffe(at least of a sort). But how can a system be 'just' at the core, when in fact it is absolutely reliant, not so much on evidence, truth, and fact, but on simply your ability to afford the most expensive legal teams, and to be rich enough to let the case endure, knowing that you can afford to do so, while most people are denied true justice, by virtue of the fact that we cannot afford the legal fees it takes to get in on the justice game? If the precise same accusation were made against you, as it was against someone very connected and extremely rich, do you firstly think the police themselves would treat both of you in precisely the same way? Do you think they would investigate both of you equally as fully, and in the same manner? Do you think there would be more or less chance of the top cops deciding to drop the case against them, or 'lose' the evidence? But even if the cops themselves treated both equally - what then? Then come the lawyers. They can intimidate the police from the get go, with an army of lawyers, while you are reduced to either the cheapest lawyer you can find, or a state appointed lawyer whose caseload is burgeoning, and who in the end, cares only that he gets his fees - and not if you get justice. It gets worse. They are not happy with the injustice system being mostly unjust. They want to make it all the way unjust. Why else do you think they are now launching an all out attack on legal aid? Who usually relies on legal aid? The poorest in society. In practice, they are creating (and have almost done so already), a system in which one set of people can afford to intimidate cops from investigating them, or they can use an army of lawyers to give them the best possible chance of escaping justice, while at the same time, if you cannot afford legal representation, you will be effectively ostracised from getting any justice. This should matter to you. Unless of course you happen to be a multi millionaire with political connections, which one assumes you are not. This injustice system can be illustrated in other ways also. How can it be justice that the richest can protect themselves against criticism or exposure in the media, with their 'super injunctions', yet the media can tell any lie about an ordinary person, and that person has almost nil means of defending themselves.
Will you convert to legalist autocracy for your political leanings, Jack? There are many advantages. It has a long literary tradition and history.
Well look, I am more familiar with Chinese imperial tradition, since that is my area of study, but there is plenty of material on Roman imperial tradition, for instance, and later Europe before the bourgeoise overthrow. It is simply that France became over-centralized and unstable, decayed, while Britain turned bourgeoise inorder to accelerate it's colonial programs. Germany should have useful documents. In fact even the current German code regarding the economy is useful.
No matter what system mankind comes up with it always seems to fail. A system is only as good as those who participate in it. If the people are corrupt then the system will be.
