Freedom and the Rule of Law

In an earlier post, I stated that it seems as though every day there is an atrocity committed by someone claiming “mental illness”, and I am sick of it.  “The devil made me do it” doesn’t cut it, folks.  This is a follow-up to that earlier post.

An example of what provoked me to write this post is the news that an Australian court found a mother 'not responsible' for killing eight children because she was of 'unsound mind' at the time.  This is absurd and outrageous (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-39777191).

It has been proposed that those who are judged to have committed crimes because of mental illness be “diverted” into treatment programs monitored by the court.  The problem with this position is that a crime must be committed before the diversion and treatment can be imposed - the damage to society has already been done.  Instead, society needs a way to intervene before the damage is done.

We can not (nor should we) attempt to legislate morality and ethics.  That would be impossible, anyway.  However, in our increasingly lawless society, we desperately need a return to the Rule of Law.

Freedom and the law are not incompatible nor mutually exclusive.  Indeed, they reinforce each other.  Where they fail to reinforce each other, both will fail.

One can not impose ones perceived freedoms, or lack of responsibility, upon anyone else.  Therefore, acts such as violence against persons or property, larceny, fraud, and vandalism would be examples of social taboos which restrict unbounded freedom.  The only place where unfettered freedom exists is in the solitary privacy of one's own home.

Laws are established by a free society to define the boundaries among society's members where there might otherwise be conflict over those boundaries.  Those laws must also be defined under the principle of 'minimalism'; that is, to define acceptable behavior with a minimum of stipulation upon all parties.  Without the principle of minimalism, fascism will result.  However, as behavior becomes more egregious (for example, aggravated assault to murder), the legal penalties must become increasingly consequential to the offender in order to enforce the rule of law.

It is important here to remind ourselves that laws are intended to be just and fair, created by reasonable legislators for the benefit of every person.  If the law is not just and fair, nor to the benefit of society and the individual, then the law must be changed.  It is our duty as citizens to ensure the integrity of the legislature and the judiciary.

Freedom means the approval to do whatever one wishes, as long as it doesn't infringe upon another person's freedom.  Our society is losing sight of this principle and, as a result, violence and lawlessness continues to increase to the degree that the rule of law is being ignored or is not enforced.

The point here is that, as a society, we are not being taught that actions have consequences and that one is responsible for one's actions.  Actions DO have consequences, and each person IS responsible for their actions - without exception or special dispensation.  If this truth is ignored, then the law must impose consequences upon those responsible for actions which are in violation of the law.

This notion that "mental illness" is an excuse, a "get out of jail free" card for actions against society, is not a valid defense.  If a defendant claims mental illness, then they must be removed from society (incarcerated or institutionalized).

Without the Rule of Law, we are doomed to repeat tragedy without end.  We will be left to deal with the consequences of others' actions, and the Rule of Law will become impotent.  This can not be allowed to happen.

There are only two alternatives: the Rule of Law, or Anarchy.