A naive interpretation of the principles of a society  based on law ...
... starts by clarifying that the writer is not a jurisprudence scholar. Simply, these days, he is having a senescence attack and remembered when he was studying civics eons ago.
In that ancient age it was taught that law, is the hinge necessary to make people live together peacefully. People who form a collective entity: country, nation, federation, or whatever you want to call it.
But try to leave any physical object in the air. if it is not properly supported, ineluctably it will fall to the ground .
Law, in the social context, is no exception. If it is not adequately supported, it is destined to collapse.
What supports law? We will need these functions.
We can schematize what has been said with this diagram:
Reflecting on what we have just said, we are able to understand why is it so important, even vital, to keep strictly separate and autonomous these functions.
E.g. Let's assume that whoever has executive power holds the legislative too . In this case, do you think it would be unlikely that will be created laws whose purpose is not the good of citizens, but the facilitation of the executive function?
Or, let's think what can happen if the control function (Police + Judiciary) also has the power to judge: an accusation would most likely be equivalent to a sentence, without the possibility of defense.
In conclusion: let us cherish the organization of our society and the spirit of our Constitution. These are complex aspects. It takes little to twist them and a lot to rebuild them correctly, for the good of all.
|||In this context, by the term Society we mean a whole of people who organize themselves, sharing values ethical, moral, and the rules of operation of their organization.|
|||Do we remember why the Parliament and the Senate exist?|
|||This is where the Government comes into play.|
|||And this is the Judiciary, which in turn makes use of the forces of Police to actually operate.|
|||Yes, because the Judiciary investigates and possibly accuses. But who judges the validity of the accusation, that is, if the accused is guilty, is the Jury of judges in court.|
|||This is a far-fetched hypothesis, completely impossible in Italy: never seen! :-)|