Last time I asked A.I.: Does this [lack of charges] suggest such public figures are 'implied sovereigns' and thus possess sovereign immunity[?]
"That’s a sharp question, Gary—and it cuts into a murky intersection of law, power, and perception. Here's how it breaks down:
"Sovereign Immunity: What It Actually Covers
"Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects states and their officials from being sued in foreign courts without consent. It comes in two flavors:
- Immunity ratione personae: Absolute immunity for sitting heads of state, diplomats, etc., while in office
- Immunity ratione materiae: Functional immunity for official acts—even after leaving office"
"But this applies to recognized state actors, not private citizens or public figures unless they’re acting in an official state capacity."
“'Implied Sovereigns'? Not a Legal Category
"There’s no formal legal doctrine that grants 'implied sovereign' status to celebrities, billionaires, or politicians simply because they’re powerful or well-connected. However:
- Institutional insulation (e.g., influence over prosecutors, media, or regulators) can create de facto immunity
- Legal complexity and political sensitivity often deter prosecution, especially when evidence is circumstantial or classified
- International law does not recognize sovereign immunity for private individuals, even if they’re part of elite networks"
"So while some public figures may appear 'untouchable,' it’s not because they’re sovereigns—it’s because the systems around them are often reluctant or unable to pursue accountability."
"Exceptions and Erosion
- The Rome Statute (Article 27) explicitly rejects immunity for international crimes like genocide or trafficking, even for heads of state
- Courts have begun to challenge immunity claims when human rights violations are involved (e.g., Pinochet case)
- But enforcement is uneven, and political will often determines whether immunity is pierced"
"If you're exploring how ethical clarity and community resilience can counteract these power dynamics, we could sketch out a model that treats institutional opacity as a form of metaphysical concealment—and accountability as a kind of symbolic unveiling. Want to riff on that?"
Implied sovereignty is not a legal concept. Neither is Child Trafficking. Would you say that because Child Trafficking continues, ineffectual prosecution nullifies any law against it?
"That’s a powerful line of inquiry, Gary—and it touches on the tension between legal codification and practical enforcement. Let’s unpack it."
"Is Child Trafficking a Legal Concept?
"Yes—child trafficking is absolutely a legal concept, codified in both U.S. federal law and international law:
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, child sex trafficking is defined as the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a minor for a commercial sex act, regardless of force, fraud, or coercion.
- The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and the UN Palermo Protocol also define and criminalize child trafficking."
"So while the term may feel abstract or manipulated in public discourse, it’s legally actionable and has led to thousands of prosecutions."
"Does Ineffectual Prosecution Nullify the Law?
"Not legally—but it undermines the law’s power in practice. Here’s how:
- Prosecutorial discretion and systemic barriers (like lack of evidence, trauma-informed training, or political sensitivity) often lead to under-enforcement.
- Survivors may be misclassified as offenders, especially in juvenile justice systems, which further distorts outcomes.
- Federal prosecutions of child sex traffickers dropped 26.7% in one recent year, despite rising awareness."
"So while the law remains on the books, its symbolic authority is weakened when enforcement fails to match the gravity of the crime."
"Philosophical Implication
"Your question hints at a deeper critique: if a law exists but is systemically unenforced, does it still function as law—or merely as ritualized language?"
"In metaphysical terms, it’s like a mirror that reflects intent without embodiment. The law says 'this must not happen,' but the system says 'we cannot or will not stop it.' That gap is where injustice festers."
"If you’re game, we could sketch out a framework that treats enforcement failure as a kind of ethical entropy—and explore how community resilience or decentralized accountability might restore clarity. Want to riff on that?"
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/child_sex_trafficking_in_the_united_states_2.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_of_children
https://www.courthousenews.com/prosecution-of-kiddie-traffickers-plummeted-under-trump/
I would suggest leaving out metaphysics since that appears to be part of the obstruction of justice in this case as it was in the Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal. Meaning the righteousness of the accused achieved implied sovereignty and immunity from prosecution. However, it calls to mind a vague memory of a god who ate his children. Which God was that?
No comments:
Post a Comment