“No one is above the law” is a fundamental democratic principle called the rule of law. It states that everyone, regardless of wealth, power, or status – including presidents and public officials – must be treated equally under the law and be held accountable for their actions. This principle ensures that no one is immune from legal consequences and helps prevent abuses of power.

“No one is above the law” means that every individual, regardless of status, wealth, or power – including government leaders like presidents – is equally subject to the law and must follow it. It highlights that no one can act without consequences or receive special treatment, promoting accountability and equality in a democratic society.

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t explicitly say ‘no one is above the law,’ but it expresses this idea through the rule of law, particularly through the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Supremacy Clause. These parts of the Constitution require that everyone, including government officials, be held responsible under the law.

Law is a system of enforceable rules established and upheld by social or government institutions to regulate conduct, maintain order, and safeguard rights. These rules, such as statutes, regulations, and judicial precedents, define acceptable behavior and consequences for violations, shaping economic, social, and political interactions.

Its purpose is to maintain peace, protect individual rights, promote social justice, and enable organized social change. It is divided into two main categories: Public Law, which governs relationships between individuals and the government – such as criminal and constitutional law – and Private Law, which handles relationships between private individuals or organizations – like Contract Law and Property Law.

Law is a system of enforceable rules created and maintained by social or government bodies to regulate behavior, uphold order, and protect rights. These rules, which include statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions, define acceptable conduct and penalties for violations, shaping economic, social, and political interactions.

This commentary examines Public Law, especially those in the public domain, with a focus on physical crimes like assault and murder. It must be applicable across the entire scope of the law, both public and private, highlighting the lack of responsibility and accountability after a criminal is released.

Here’s my premise:

A criminal is someone who has committed an act punishable by law, often being formally convicted of a crime, or someone who habitually breaks the law. As an adjective, it describes actions, behaviors, or groups involved in illegal activities, such as “criminal conspiracy.”

Criminals are not fish, so the catch-and-release approach should not apply. Law enforcement is not a game; it’s essential for a thriving society and healthy community. Its role is to protect public safety, maintain social order, and uphold the rule of law by enforcing statutes, preventing crime, and investigating illegal activities. It is a vital part of the justice system, aiming to protect victims, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide emergency assistance. But, what about those who administer the law? Shouldn’t it also apply to them?

Sentences are generally not considered arbitrary because they follow specific, systematic grammatical rules and structures rather than being random. While individual words (signs) used to represent concepts are usually arbitrary, their arrangement into sentences requires logic and syntax. There are certain degrees of flexibility and discretion in the law, but they should be used sparingly, not recklessly, to release criminals back into the community. The revolving-door policies in some jurisdictions are an insult to the legal system as a whole.

Here’s an explanation of why sentences are usually not random.

– Systematic Structure: Sentences are governed by grammar and syntax, meaning they follow logical rules to convey ideas. They are carefully constructed, not chosen randomly.

– Conventionality: Language depends on social convention. While we can theoretically choose different words (arbitrariness of the sign), we cannot rearrange them arbitrarily (for example, “Cat the sat mat on” makes no sense).

– Meaning-Driven: Sentences are designed to clearly communicate specific information, ideas, or actions, not chosen randomly or arbitrarily.

– Exceptions: In certain contexts, like specific types of poetry or avant-garde literature, word order might appear arbitrary, but even then, it’s usually a deliberate stylistic choice rather than randomness.

Judges possess significant authority and broad discretion to impose an “individually appropriate” sentence. Although constrained by statutory maximums, minimums, and advisory sentencing guidelines, they can consider factors such as prior criminal history, mitigating circumstances, and the defendant’s character to decide the final penalty. This enables them to deviate from standard guidelines based on specific case details.

Judges generally have judicial immunity for their rulings, protecting them from personal liability for recidivism. However, new legislative proposals like the “JAIL Act” aim to hold judges civilly liable for releasing violent repeat offenders. Accountability is usually limited to elections, retention votes, or disciplinary actions for misconduct.

District Attorneys (DAs) play an essential role in reducing recidivism because of their broad discretion in charging decisions, plea bargains, and diversion programs that determine whether someone is imprisoned or given alternative services. Modern prosecutors often focus on breaking the cycle of reoffending with “smart justice” initiatives, such as pre-trial diversion, specialized courts (drug, mental health), and reentry support, instead of aiming for high conviction rates.

District Attorneys (DAs), state’s attorneys, or county prosecutors are public officials responsible for prosecuting felonies and misdemeanors, representing the government in criminal cases, and having significant authority over charging decisions. Therefore, in the context of the “JAIL Act” legislation targeting criminal justice professionals, district attorneys are included.

But… who is responsible and accountable for the recidivist criminal, you know… the bad actor – the criminal who’s been released back into the community, or the one released without bail through the revolving door of political justice?

Who’s responsible?

Who’s accountable?

The previous two questions act as the trigger for this commentary.

If the legal system is responsible for detaining and prosecuting criminals, and held accountable for that duty, then are they not also responsible for releasing them into society? They hold the keys to this process and guard it carefully with strict guidelines. Since they have nearly complete control over the entire process from start to finish, wouldn’t they also be responsible for early releases and, as a result, accountable for their actions after an early release? Then why is the judicial system above the laws it administers?

As a bartender, if I serve an intoxicated person another drink and that individual then kills someone while driving, I can be held responsible. If a DA releases someone with a significant criminal record (Rap Sheet) who has just committed a felony, releases them back into the community, and this person commits further crimes, why aren’t the DA and the presiding judge held accountable?

Are they above the law?

Aren’t they responsible for their decisions and the resulting actions of returning this person to society, just like the bartender?

Then will someone please define “To Protect and Serve” to me…

I really hate being so repetitive, but who elects the representatives and who allows them to stay in office? Look in the mirror – the face looking back is ultimately in charge. This America is a representative democracy, at least for now, which means that citizens elect their representatives, and if those elected officials don’t perform or appoint people who fail to follow our needs and wants, there are mechanisms available to remove them from office.

If we’ve put them in office and they do not meet our expectations, isn’t it our responsibility to see them removed?

Why do we consider our obligation fulfilled after we vote?

Doesn’t that burden follow us through the completion of that person’s full term of office?

It seems we’re leaving the job half-done!

A Little Background:

– 71% of formerly incarcerated individuals are rearrested, 78% for property crimes, and 70% for drug crimes.

– 66% of released prisoners are rearrested within three years.

– 51% of all released prisoners are rearrested within five years.

– 47% are convicted of a new crime within three years.

– 25% are returned to prison with a new conviction.

Although violent offenders generally have lower recidivism rates than others, 63.8% of federal violent offenders were rearrested within eight years, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Judges, parole boards, and prosecutors are often criticized for releasing repeat offenders through bail, sentencing, or parole decisions. Critics frequently accuse them of being too lenient and adopting “soft-on-crime” policies, while others point to systemic issues and statutory requirements.

Main Entities Responsible for Releasing Repeat Offenders:

– Judges often face criticism for granting bail or lenient sentences to individuals with prior convictions. Proposed legislation, such as the JAIL Act, aims to hold judges accountable for releasing violent repeat offenders.

– Parole Boards: These boards oversee granting parole to eligible inmates, which can lead to the release of repeat offenders.

– Prosecutors: Decisions made during plea negotiations or about bail recommendations can influence whether an offender is released back into the community.

– Government Officials and Policies: Some argue that, in addition to judicial discretion, broader policies and government agencies involved in the “revolving door” of the justice system are to blame, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. The media calls this “catch and release” policing since many detainees are back on the street a few hours after their arrest.

The Federal Judicial Branch includes federal and state courts and judges who interpret laws, apply them to individual cases, and determine if laws conflict with the Constitution. Established by Article III of the Constitution, it serves as a check on the Legislative and Executive branches, fairly resolving legal disputes.

The judicial system at the state and local levels is a layered network of courts that interprets state laws, resolves legal disputes, and reviews cases. It typically includes state supreme courts, appellate courts, and trial courts (such as superior, circuit, or district courts), along with municipal or local courts that handle specific issues like traffic violations.

Lawyers and attorneys act as authorized legal representatives, advocates, and counselors within the judicial system, serving as officers of the court rather than judges. They connect citizens to the law by handling litigation, resolving disputes, and making sure that legal procedures are properly followed in criminal and civil cases.

Although often used interchangeably in the U.S., the main difference is licensing: an attorney is a licensed professional authorized to practice law and represent clients in court, while a lawyer is someone who has graduated from law school. All attorneys are lawyers, but not all lawyers are licensed attorneys.

Context:

– Judicial Discretion: Judges have the authority to make decisions, and critics like Congressman Tim Moore argue that this discretion is sometimes abused, resulting in the release of potentially dangerous individuals.

– Public Safety Concern: The focus is often on cases where previously released criminals commit new crimes.

– “Three Strikes” Laws: While meant to imprison repeat offenders, these laws can sometimes influence release decisions for repeat offenders after they’ve served their time.

The Solution:

The Judicial Accountability for Irresponsible Leniency (JAIL) Act is a proposed 2025 US bill aimed at holding judges and government officials responsible for releasing repeat violent offenders on bail. It enables victims to sue officials for damages if a released offender harms them, bypassing traditional judicial immunity in such cases.

The JAIL Act, introduced by Senator Tim Sheehy in late 2025, aims to reduce the “revolving door” for offenders by allowing victims and their families to sue judges who release violent offenders on bail, including cases where bail is waived or when the accused is released (zero or cashless bail). It also eliminates judicial immunity when released individuals reoffend.

Key Aspects:

– Judicial Accountability: The law aims at judges who release dangerous criminals, enabling victims to sue them civilly in U.S. District Court.

– Targeting “Revolving Door”: It seeks to break the cycle of violent criminals being released on low bail or probation and reoffending quickly.

– Ending Judicial Immunity: An important step is removing the defense of judicial immunity for officials who fail to properly detain repeat violent offenders.

– Context: Introduced in response to high-profile violent crimes, the bill advocates for stricter and safer bail procedures, according to Senator Tim Sheehy’s press release.

The JAIL Act allows victims to sue for damages, but I believe it doesn’t fully reach its goal. It will put additional strain on an already overwhelmed legal system. Currently, there are 360,698 civil cases filed in US District Courts, over 300,000 in the federal court system, and 7,000 filed in the Supreme Court. The justice system handles a staggering 66 million cases each year.

This illustrates that each of these 32,700 judges would handle 2,018,349 cases if cases were evenly spread out. We know this is unrealistic, but I want to highlight the enormous volume of litigation in this country. America spent about $408.42 billion on lawyers and attorneys in 2025, and this figure is expected to grow by 5% in 2026.

The sinister implication of the JAIL Act is that it triggers a cycle of lawyers and attorneys suing each other, with the system encouraging this continuous litigation. It adds another layer of billing and self-perpetuating cases. The only ones who will benefit are the lawyers and attorneys, while clients will pay the price through increased and endless billing.

A typical civil lawsuit usually takes 1 to 3 years to resolve, federal cases last from 2 to 6 years, and a felony case like murder generally takes between 1 and 2 years, depending on the court backlog.

Most immigration issues, such as visa overstays or living in the U.S. without permission, are civil violations. These can lead to removal proceedings, and in such cases, there is no right to a government-appointed attorney. An immigration case becomes criminal when it involves violations of federal criminal laws, usually 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (improper entry) or § 1326 (reentry after deportation), which can result in charges like misdemeanors or felonies.

According to the American Immigration Council, there are 3.3 million active cases pending, which means it will take at least 10 years to resolve all of them if everything goes smoothly. The average wait time is around 2 years, with an estimated total cost of $34.1 billion.

ICE ERO – US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations reports that 81,312 individuals have criminal convictions or pending charges. The total number of charges and convictions is 516,050, including 57,081 assaults, 18,579 sex offenses, 12,895 weapons offenses, and 2,894 homicides. About 61.9% are repeat offenders. Additionally, 662,566 noncitizens with criminal histories were on ICE’s non-detained docket, meaning they had been encountered by federal officials, their criminal records had been documented, and they were subsequently released into the United States.

I’ll get to my point…

The current legal system is completely broken. The people who create these problems – every one of them – cost us, the US taxpayers, you and me. We pay for this through our taxes. $529.1 billion of this money goes toward immigration, civil, and federal cases.

In the U.S. federal and state legal systems, most of the core operational costs are covered by taxpayers (the government), while defendants (and plaintiffs in civil cases) mainly pay for their own legal expenses and specific administrative “user fees.”

Is it any surprise that the people in charge, who are also lawyers and attorneys, want the system clogged with red tape and unnecessary paperwork that all contribute to billable hours? Average billing rates range from $349 per hour to over $4,000 per hour, depending on the specialty and case details. Immigration lawyers commonly bill around $350 per hour for simple deportation, but rates can exceed $500 per hour for more complex cases.

Let’s do some simple math: 3.3 million active immigration cases, with each case taking an average of 2 hours, equals 6.6 million billable hours at an average rate of $350 per hour, totaling $2.31 billion in potential revenue. This appears to be a profitable opportunity that benefits the legal profession.

Several NGOs and charitable groups assist these individuals by providing funding for their expenses. However, it’s important to recognize that these organizations receive our donations, government grants, and tax allocations, which effectively make them part of America’s tax burden. Additionally, donating money to these charities might be tax-deductible on your personal taxes, which could increase the overall tax burden at both the state and federal levels.

In 2026, the total cost of immigration litigation in the United States, including government adjudication, enforcement, and private legal expenses, will be roughly $60 billion annually. This mainly results from the previous administration, which opened the country to an influx of illegal immigration involving over 20 million people, many of whom remain here. Admittedly, most of these illegal immigrants are peaceful individuals seeking a better life, but that does not justify their illegal entry into America. It is those in that group, the bad actors, who create and worsen the problems for everyone.

The JAIL Act doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t address the harm caused to local communities, states, or America by harmful, politically biased judicial decisions. This burden is left for everyone to bear. Activist judges and district attorneys often release criminals back into the communities without regard for their impact. Unfortunately, there are no official statistics on the number of criminal acts resulting from recidivism between 2020 and 2026, but estimates show that 70% of prisoners are rearrested within five years of release.

I argue that those responsible for releasing criminals who cause further harm in the community should be held accountable for the damage caused by the criminal after their release. If the criminal continues to commit crimes such as robbery, rape, murder, or assault, the judicial team – the judge, District Attorney, and Defense Attorney – should be held accountable for the recidivist’s actions.

The current system allows chaos in communities that the legal system doesn’t protect. It’s time to hold the legal system and those who misuse it responsible.

Maybe this change could trigger a revival in the ‘injustice’ system.

The system is broken, biased toward the criminal element, and supported by those we trust to run it for the republic.

I have no issue with a legal system that benefits the community, but a system that reintroduces criminals into society is not only flawed; it also punishes the wrong people. The only solution is to assign responsibility and accountability where it belongs – to the decision-makers.

No One Is Above the Law!

Disclaimer:
I am NOT connected to the legal profession or system in any way. I am a retired engineer and business owner. My views and opinions reflect those of a proud American Veteran who is tired of a system that uses me as its source of funding to support foolish, wasteful, and shamelessly immoral programs that aid criminals.

‘The dickens you say…’

For the Amalgamated Heavy…

April 2, 2026

~ the Author ~
Charles R. Dickens Was Born in 1951, Is a Veteran of the Vietnam War, for Which He Volunteered, and the Great-Great Grandson of the Noted Author, Whose Name He Shares.

He Is a Fiercely Proud American, Who Still Believes This Is the Greatest Country on the Planet, With Which We’ve Lost Control and Certainly Our Direction. He Grew Up in Moderate Financial Surrounding; We’re Not Rich by Any Stretch, but Didn’t Go Hungry – His Incredibly Hard Working Father Saw to That. As Most From That Era, He Learned About Life From His Father, Whose Story Would Take Too Long to Tell, Other Than to Say That, He Is Also a Fiercely Proud American; A WWII and Korean War, Veteran Marine.

Charlie Was Educated in the Parochial System Which, Demanded That You Actually Learn Something, and Have Capability to Retain It Before You Advance. He Attended Several Universities in Pursuit of a Bachelor’s Degree, and Chased the Goose Further to a Master’s, and Has Retained Some Very Definite Ideas About Education in This Country.

in Addition, Charlie Is a Retired Blues Guitar and Vocalist – a Musician. This Was His Therapy Career. Nothing Brings Him as Much Joy as Playing Music, and He Wishes That He Could Make a Living at It… but Alas… Life Goes on!