then Stallone said, "I AM the law!"

If you have ever seen Judge Dredd then you obviously catch the none too subtle reference. The law was by the book in the comic and movie. There was no grey area, no room for error, no room for human emotion. Dredd was judge, jury and executioner.
Meanwhile, in United States courts, the more appropriate question would be, "What is the law?"
I am a firm believer that average citizens should be capable of understanding both the intent and the actuality of the law. In our fair country that is frankly pretty much impossible. Not even the people who write the laws know what the law means.
You think I am kidding but I am not. How often has something been run up the flagpole to see what will happen? Let me give you a perfect example that not only resonates today but actually is being tested in reverse. Ever hear of Brown v Board of Education? Lets look back at how it came about.
After the Civil War (how exactly can war be civil? "Pardon me, sir, I am trying to shoot you. Could you be a gentleman and hold steady for just a moment?" "Oh, pardon, sure. But could you shoot me here through this button? Don't want to stain my trousers, you know. Maybe after you shoot me we can share a hot toddy.") blacks were free but nobody knew what it meant. Cases started being heard in court.
Well, one railroad decided to separate their valued white passengers from their less valued "colored" passengers...it is interesting to note the less valued passengers still got charged full price...well, lo and behold someone decided that wasn't cricket so they sued the railroad.
Lawyers got together, the room warmed as the hot air flowed, and out of it came a court decision that since the railroad was a private entity the owners could indeed make this distinction so long as they provided equal accomodations. Hence, separate but equal.
Note it was limited to private companies. Well, along about 1915 innovative D.W. Griffith made another innovation...a feature length film called Birth of a Nation. This movie is often credited with single handedly restarting the ku klux klan, a bit of filth I refuse to capitalize. Much like the pope there is only so much courtesy I will give to outright evil.
Their stunning growth finished what the end of Reconstruction started. Soon the status of blacks and whites was separate and we are more equal than you. Study the history, it is dark, depressing, shameful, embarrassing, and illuminating.
Somehow the decision in Plessy v Ferguson (1886) had expanded to every facet of U.S. life. Separate but equal was the law, both public and private. Of course, no educated person today is unaware of Brown v Board of Education (1954) and the impact therein.
What you might not be aware of is the full impact. you see, nobody knew how far it extended. Did Brown just mean schools had to be integrated? Was integration voluntary or involuntary? Who had the responsibility to pay for the integration? Did that protection now extend into private life in contrast to Plessy?
I don't want to get lost in a rehash of Civil Rights cases but I do think the underlying point is a valid one. Just because you read the law does not mean you know the law or understand the law.
Law might take into account original intent, other opinions, public opinion, laws in other countries, etc. Here is the problem; the law is what one particular set of people at one particular place at one particular moment say it is.
THat is the danger of precedent. A 5-4 decision is precedent and later cases look back to that to understand the law. Why does it need to be so complicated? Lawmakers do not always know what law they are making because a court will determine what it really means.
THink about this; half the judges finished in the bottom half of their class. The ones at the top still made errors. Yet they determine for decades what is meant by law. And sometimes they strongly disagree over what the law is.
You really want to know why that is scary? You might do everything in your power to be a law abiding citizen, a good citizen, a person who always does what is right...and the odds are you broke a law today without knowing it and possibly without knowing it even exists. Even worse, judges are probably unknowingly breaking laws because the law is so complicated. Cops just break it because they feel like it. We all know they are the worst non-politician criminals out there.
I guess my theory is that laws should not be so complicated and confusing that a person of average intelligence simply doing what common sense dictates is a criminal, whether convicted or not.
Then again, skimming back over this it occurs to me I was just as unclear on what I am trying to say as the very system I am complaining about. Let's try again with bullet points:
- Law should be accessable to everyone; that is, it should not be more complicated than a sub-standard student can comprehend
- Law should not be so complicated that it needs a test case before people know what the law actually is
- Law should not be so complicated that honest citizens break it every day because they neither know nor understand the law

Nope. Closer, still not accurate. Then again, if I clearly said what I am trying to say it would probably be libel or slander. That is, it would be if they knew what I said.