Legality is not morality.
At what point does a question become too broad and cryptic to answer?
2025
1492
At no point. Crimes are relative to the legal system that rules over them. Without a legal system you are not committing crimes.
At the point that it does.
For the United States: somewhere around 1857–charitably.
That was a long time ago—here in Germany, it was 1933 when Hitler enacted the so-called Enabling Act.
Nazi Germany was defeated in World War II, but U.S. billionaires made sure that their counterparts were never held accountable for their crimes.
That is why, in light of recent events, I ask
The United States has a long history of the using the legal system to enforce Jim Crow laws… but really, most of the injustice is just persistent bias at every stage of the judicial process–from being stopped by police, to being arrested by police, to be tried in court, to being sentenced. Black people are just stopped more, arrested more, tried more, convicted more, and sentenced to harsher punishments. There’s no need to EXPLICITLY spell it out. Everyone just knows to do their job to enforce white supremacy within the letter of the law.
That said, there are definitely some laws to help along the police state oppression: civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, lower civil rights protections in “high crime areas” (read: black neighborhoods).
The way you ask your question, though, it makes it sound like you’re asking when the justice system gives its EXPLCIT BLESSING to injustice, as opposed to just ALLOWING it to happen. I think that’s much rarer.
I can’t understand how you can still believe you’re living in a functioning constitutional state.
Everything you say is completely refuted by the Epstein case alone.
I can’t understand how anyone can be so blind.
As I said, in Germany, massive violence was necessary to bring about Nazi rule.
In the U.S., that doesn’t even seem to be necessary, because its citizens apparently view blatant injustice as the norm.
The point at which the U.S. legal system endorses absolute injustice has long since been reached. Even the Supreme Court agrees.
I think you are misunderstanding me. I agree with you, but i’m differentiating between the justice system explicitly legalizing criminality and the justice procedurally ignoring it. Dredd Scott is an example of the former, Epstein is an example of the latter.
I know exactly where my passport is.
You are essentially asking, what is the “Rule of Law”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
This concept is sometimes stated simply as “no one is above the law” or “all are equal before the law”.
The quote you’ve taken from this article could hardly be more inappropriate, since it bears no resemblance to reality—in either version.
reality—in either version.
What do you mean with that? You have asked an abstract question, not any specific real situation.
It was a very specific question. You’re the one turning it into an abstraction.
I can give a very specific answer to that, since I’m from Germany: In Germany in 1933, the Nazis used the legal system to give their inhuman crimes a veneer of legality. The reason for this was their absolute and extremely violent seizure of political power. They even retroactively legalized murders—including those of their own henchmen, such as Ernst Röhm, and many of their own party members.
Millions upon millions were murdered by the Nazis—and all of this was sanctioned by the legal system of that monstrous state.
This did not end until 1945 with the Allies’ victory over Nazi Germany.
However, a victory was evidently not achieved, for today in Israel and the U.S., hundreds of thousands of people are being held in concentration camps that are hardly any different from those of the Nazis.
