The Parable of the Slayer

Some time ago in our society there was an evil man. Most people believe that he brutally murdered his wife with a knife, and killed another man just because he was there at the time. Not all believe this -- and the belief often is correlated with matching the ethnic background of the man -- but most do.

Because of this, the man was brought before the legal apparatus of our society, for our society is governed by the rule of law. His crime was punishable by execution, or if not that, imprisonment for life. Society considers this a drastic step, to be taken only in the most extreme circumstances, and only under very difficult standards of proof.

He was tried by this system, with much argument and debate. He is clever, and hired people who are clever and who knew the rules of the system, and exploited how hard it is to meet the standard of proof the society has deemed necessary for true justice. In addition, some speculate that the inspectors who examined his case may have modified some of the evidence even though he was guilty, to assure they met the standard necessary.

However, after all the arguments and hearings, the system came to a decision. There wasn't enough proof to warrant the terrible penalties. He was not jailed or executed. However, the system did order him stripped of all his money.

People were upset at the system. As noted, most seemed to feel he was an evil murderer. They wanted to see him fully punished. Out of respect for the rule of law -- and the fact that this law would punish them if they acted -- they did not carry out those desires.

The parable so far is true, but imagine there was a very powerful man in this society. A multi-billionaire able to easily win in any conflict with an ordinary citizen. While all the citizens together could gather together and prevail, this man's power is feared and envied but respected.

The billionaire says that the system failed. It should have punished the man. He's a murderer, the billionaire is certain. He believes we should not let murderers go free. It is proposed that he might use his might to execute the murderer directly. His wealth is such that he can even do this in a way that can't be traced back to him by the standards of proof required.

The debate is now over what it means to society if the billionaire can do this. Some support him, but most oppose him. He says it should be done regardless of that opposition. If he does it, he will become more hated in the society, though he feels he can afford that. Some suspect he has other motives, though many accept he simply seeks justice where the system refused to declare it.

And so the people wonder just what the rule of law is to mean. Most feel the man is indeed a murderer, but they wonder what it means for the individually powerful to act on their own when the system -- as a knowing feature of its design -- refuses to act. They might agree with the goals of the action, but wonder about the next time, the next action.

They might also, if they are within the circle of the billionaire, wonder about what it means if the billionaire loses his might and if other powerful figures rise. Does the precedent mean they can act on their own when they see the system not punishing as they think it should?

Of course, in a nation, that powerful individual is not allowed to take the law into his own hands, and if he does, all the others will approve that their combined might punish him for doing so.

And the community of nations is of course not identical to the people in this parable, but the question is whether those differences affect the central point, about the desirability of the rule of law and the undesirability of unilateral individual action to supplant it. Yes, Iraq is much nastier than the man, and a recidivist to boot. And while the murder victims are dead, the Iraqi despots continue to kill new victims. But I muse what standards there should be to handle such problems.

Some might read this and say, "Yeah, somebody should have put a hit on on the murderer; his trial showed the system to be a farce." Others would fully agree that he should enjoy his life playing golf as a free but poorer man. Most will see a problem with no easy solution, but this is what the community of nations must decide.

Trying to view the global problem through the lens of a famous individual crime asks the question, "If nations are to work to different standards of justice and decision making than individuals in just societies, how and why should those standards be different?" I don't present the answer, only the question.

Story of the Presario on eBay