The answer to that is not relevant to the question of whether laws are “black and white”.
Do you notice how in dictatorships they actually just ignore the laws instead?
They ignore some laws, some of the time.
The principle of the Rule of Law is that all people are subject to the same law, and that law is available so that everyone can know what it is.
Quick history lesson: in Tudor and Stuart England, the King could prosecute anyone he liked for anything he liked in the so-called Star Chamber; it did not have to hand down judgements based on any written law and instead it could decide any case before it based on its own ideas of morality. Successive Kings used this to punish those opposed to them and their policies. The Star Chamber was abolished during the English Civil War by parliament (opposed to the King) because of its excesses, and along with its abolition came a growing understanding that became the principle of the rule of law.
When you allow courts to rule otherwise than in accordance with the law, you allow them to pick whom they punish and whom they do not punish. This is the case with all exceptions to Rule of Law - such as presidential pardons. They were designed to permit mercy, but Trump used them to pardon his supporters.
When you ask to suspend Rule of Law and permit leniency - permit deviation from the law - you’re asking to allow whomever has influence over the use of that deviance to exert their own personal will on the judicial process. The powerful having influence over justice is a hallmark of authoritarianism, which is what you’re asking for.
What you want is for people who commit crimes that you think have mitigating circumstances to be let off. Making you the authority in your authoritarian fantasy.
Who made the laws mate? Lmfao.
Do you notice how in dictatorships they actually just ignore the laws instead?
The answer to that is not relevant to the question of whether laws are “black and white”.
They ignore some laws, some of the time.
The principle of the Rule of Law is that all people are subject to the same law, and that law is available so that everyone can know what it is.
Quick history lesson: in Tudor and Stuart England, the King could prosecute anyone he liked for anything he liked in the so-called Star Chamber; it did not have to hand down judgements based on any written law and instead it could decide any case before it based on its own ideas of morality. Successive Kings used this to punish those opposed to them and their policies. The Star Chamber was abolished during the English Civil War by parliament (opposed to the King) because of its excesses, and along with its abolition came a growing understanding that became the principle of the rule of law.
When you allow courts to rule otherwise than in accordance with the law, you allow them to pick whom they punish and whom they do not punish. This is the case with all exceptions to Rule of Law - such as presidential pardons. They were designed to permit mercy, but Trump used them to pardon his supporters.
When you ask to suspend Rule of Law and permit leniency - permit deviation from the law - you’re asking to allow whomever has influence over the use of that deviance to exert their own personal will on the judicial process. The powerful having influence over justice is a hallmark of authoritarianism, which is what you’re asking for.
What you want is for people who commit crimes that you think have mitigating circumstances to be let off. Making you the authority in your authoritarian fantasy.