Like I said, the point of my example of the Riot Act is that everyone, even the state, has to follow its own rules and proceedure. I used that example, because the official had to read the whole act. And there was basically a riot going on around him. And by the end of the reading of the act, I'm sure the crowd had begun throwing things and getting more violent. Which coincidentally is where he was supposed to read "God save the king". But the law was clear, if he didn't read the whole act, including that, everyone went free. Because even if the rules aren't fair, if we abide by them, who can argue with that? Or say that the unfair treatment was intended or avoidable, or even really unfair? Even if later generations think it was. I know in my country, people don't follow their own rules in legal proceedings, including criminal. And they say, but does it matter? The guy was evil. He deserved it. I just don't see that, and never did I think, really. You know there are other examples of this throughout history. Like the Nuremberg trials. Some people argue that the the Nuremberg trials were ex post facto, and that they weren't even possible under existing international law. Most agree it was good those people guilty of those horrible crimes were punished. And I'm not going to debate that or bring it up. But I bring it up because it is an example of how sometimes when the debate is about something that emotional for some people, you have to be careful what you say, even if your legal argument is correct. But Hitler and most of the Nazis died long ago. So that one fading into most people's memory too. But that last one also brings up things like when should you follow orders, when are you justified in not following orders and when should never follow orders.
