I could never believe in the rule of law again Essay

I could never confide in the rule of justness again. Says David, reflecting on the events of 1948. Why does he come to this conclusion?Larry Watsons tonne 1948 is a story set at Bentrock, Montanan focuses on the family struggles of the Haydens between loyalty and beneficialice. David Hayden, the adult narrator, looks back at the summer when he was twelve years old, and rec all(prenominal)s all the tone-changing events which completely lead to his disbelief of the rule of law. spring chicken David once believed in the rule of law, and believed the adult is righteous to uphold judge, but on the contrary, what unveiled beforehand him is how the Hayden family neglect the law and abuse power, is how his grandfather attempts to protect his criminal son, is how uncle Franks misdeeds is covered throughout.Davids perspectives on the rule of law is initially influenced by the way the members of his family abuse their powers. In the position of sheriff in generation, the Hayden family i s the one enforce the law all the time, even above the law. Knowing when to look and when to look out-of-door is the principle of grandfather Julian, as a former sheriff, who was a dominating man who drew provisions and strength from controlling others. It is a sign of corruption as law is not taking seriously. As for Wesley, although he seems not get a hang of it, he actually lived happily and proudly beneath Julians power at the start.This is evident when David recounts his drunken father said to Gail They couldnt prevail us-we atomic number 18 the law. after Julian intimidate back the cowboys at a bar. With power in their hands, they are able to do whatever they want against the law without being punished. David was shocked when he discovered that twain of his father and grandfather were in conspiracy of knowledge about Frank raping Indian girls, but just indulged it. Before reaching the central climax, David already finds out that people are not equal in front of the law, powerful people is always dominant.The light of justice is getting dim and dim in response to the two main characters action. Nave as David, could originally believe his grandfather will betroth care of everything, if Wes chose to tell on Frank. Hell shake him up and shout in Franks face that hed better straighten upand fly right or therell be hell to pay. However the reality is that neither Wes nor Julian brings about justice at first. Wes doesnt want to breach family loyalty, so he claimed he wont do anything to arrange it, condescension of ultimately overcoming his moral dilemma and standing up to Julian. Julians confrontation to Wes that You dont lock up your brother for raping Indians is evidence of inequality before law based on racism. His pastime action on setting Frank free by attacking Davids house is even more lawless. After stumble into these disturbing events, David realizes that the one who should be the representative of law, ironically, is the one break the law f irst.If there is the rule of law, then sins-crimes-are not supposed to go unpunished. Frank did pay his life for the bill eventually, but it didnt undergo the ways in law. In order to preserve the family reputation, all the family members are in agreement of concealing the truth of Franks death and all his crimes. Thus, justice is not achieved for dead Marie and those Indian patients. At that time, David senses how powerless the law is, so he cant help but ask How many secrets had our town agreed to keep? And since any homo confederacy might omit stories of sexual abuse, murder, suicide he no longer holds his childhood faith in the rule of law again.All these encounters in Davids younger days, make him aware of the human intervention of law. The rule of law can be alternated by human, the rule of law can be rewritten by human, the rule of law doesnt always deliver justice. When the family loyalty clashes with justice, the rule of law has to compromise.