Nobody should be above the law

We meet again... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Queen doesn't ALWAYS get to do what she likes, Brian. But suppose she had accidentally misplaced a novel under her crown and was not arrested for it... so what? Arresting and charging the Queen would be more trouble than it's worth. She's old, she's testy, she's rich, she's feeble, etc. Holding her accountable for her "crime" would only be expensive, dramatic, upsetting , embarrassing and probably result in more outrage and crime than necessary. Making an example out of her is not worth the trouble because of all that it would entail. It's much more sensible to recognize it as a simple misunderstanding , especially because the law in question was a terribly minor offense. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - And because I can't resist... Your resolution is flawed because it encompasses ALL laws and ALL individuals in ALL countries, regardless of the "crime's" nature. I think we can all agree that some laws are bogus and should be able to be indulged upon, on occasion. For instance, if a 20 year old soldier is returning home from Iraq, goes to the neighborhood pub and gives the bartender some self-pitying (though honest) sob story about losing his friends (literally), his girlfriend (to his brother) and a wallet with his ID card, but the bartender sees the shrapnel wounds and is almost certain that the solider is telling the truth (so subsequently appeases him with a beer despite not being able to verify his age), keep in mind that the bartender would be breaking two laws here in the States: Serving alcoholic beverages to a minor, and serving alcohol to someone without ID. Now, suppose you were an off-duty cop sitting on the bar stool next to this sorry young man and witnessed this encounter. Would you feel compelled to draw attention to this scenario and hold the bartender (and soldier) accountable for their dishonesty and perhaps misconduct? Or would you let it go? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - But back to the Queen... I'm pretty sure that smoking marijuana is just as illegal in the U.K. as it is in the States. Suppose Her Majesty, after a long hard day (oh, you know... doing charity work, knighting a few people, acting as the head of the State, holding a few State functions, dealing with paperwork, representing Britain, chatting it up with the Prime Minister, etc, all at age 83 after more than 50 years of service with no official retirement...) wanted to smoke a joint. Not a huge, fat blunt or anything , but just a small little joint that will surely burn quickly and probably only provide about 4 decent hits to get this mama blazed. Do you really think that she should not be allowed to engage in this type of illegal obscenity? Because remember, Brian, that you're arguing that nobody should be above the law, despite what those laws might be. Furthermore, even more ridiculous (and less controversial) laws exist. In my home state of NJ, for example (I'm here for school) doing these things are all against the law: pumping your own gas, frowning at a police officer, for a man to knit during fishing season, slurp your soup, etc. [1] Now suppose myself or some other far more impressive individual broke one or more of these laws. I dunno, say I knocked someone's teeth out and they were forced to slurp their soup. Do you think they should be punished in accordance with the law? Surely the resolution entails some type of punishment, as was indicated by your R1 argument. On that note, we should take into account the TYPES of punishment one may receive from breaking a certain law. If the Queen had misplaced that book under her crown in an Islamic nation, mayhaps she would have had her hands chopped off! In addition to that being a ridiculous and unnecessary punishment regardless of who's done it, it would cause far more controversy and have a plethora of negative global repercussions if someone like the Queen had been accused and charged. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now suppose someone broken the law(s) out of NECESSITY, and not just sympathy (i.e. the empathetic bartender). For instance, it's illegal to speed on the highway, but should someone be in danger (say a medical emergency) and sped someone to the hospital in order to save their life, surely their heroism would not warrant a hefty $500 ticket let alone an arrest. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finally, take into account a nation state where the laws weren't democratically voted upon or agreed to. In a dictatorship, the leader makes the laws. Therefore, he or she could easily manipulate the law in accordance with a particular scenario. This would not necessarily be wrong or immoral, as detailed by the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (hypocrisy fallacy). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Source: [1] http://www.dumblaws.com...