Under the rule of law, how can breaking the law be justified?

Firemen are allowed break any law (destroying property, traffic laws, tresspassing, even setting off bombs) in their line of work. But firemen have no special legal powers. So how can they do that, and why can’t I?

Under the rule of law, the same law applies to everyone. In some countries the police are above the law (France), in others it is a monarch (UK), in others there is different law for different ethnicities (Israel). They do not have rule of law.

Under the rule of law, there are no automatic punishments handed out by robots or algorithms, extra-judicial punishments, or punishments without a crime (UK, UK, and UK). No ASBOs, fixed-penalties, or internment. When somebody commits a crime, he is called before a judge, who applies a punishment, in accordance with a written (unlike the UK) non-secret (unlike the USA) set of laws.

So one day a fireman gets called out to an emergency, and he breaks some laws. He could get called before a judge for that. But the judge will always excuse crimes reasonably done to tackle an emergency. If the fireman does the same thing when there is no emergency, he will be sentenced.

If somebody calls me to help with a fire, I can do the same. The crucial and only difference between him and me, is that I’m unlikely to ever be called out to a fire.

So firemen (and police, organ-transplant drivers, gas pipeline repairmen, etc) must all obey the law outside of an emergency or some other great exceptional need. Even with emergencies, they can expect to get called to court occasionally to justify their actions.

And if I need to break a window or a traffic light in my rush rush to get to a doctor (or even a fire) I can do that without fear of punishment.

This also means that police and airport staff have no need for special legal powers. For example in the UK, anybody an make an arrest. But non-police rarely do so, except in exceptional situations. It’s nearly always better to call the police instead, not least because you’ll later have to explain your actions in court. This is the example which should be made more general.

This is the only reasonable way for the law to be organised.

    • roastpotatothiefOPM
      1·
      3 years ago

      Thanks for sharing. I guess he’s exploiting this paradox where you can arrest someone without arresting him. He handcuffed the fireman and locked him up, but he didn’t say “you are under arrest” so technically he wasn’t under arrest.

      That means the policeman doesn’t need to charge him with a crime, or even prove he suspected the fireman of a crime. The fireman doesn’t have the normal legal rights and recourse, habeas corpus etc, like a prisoner would. It’s a huge loophole.

      But this is the USA like. This is mild compared to the usual policeman stories from there. It would all be different in a country with rule of law, as described above.