I'm not going to attempt to prove you wrong because corruption and coercion have existed since men began forming societies but will offer my perspective. Corruption exists in law-based as well as lawless societies. The balance likely lies somewhere between Hobbes who believed men are generally evil requiring guidance and Locke who believed men are generally compelled to do what is right for the greater good and can be governed by natural law. No society is perfect but where would society be without the rule of law? A return to the wild west?

The first problem is that law is never consistently and "fairly" and evenly applied. I can give rather specific cases. My parents always told me, even one mistake that you make, can ruin a lifetime of good actions. Government never seems to learn this lesson. I note, for example, the continuing problem of England to deal with its murder of Timothy Evans, and the similar problem in Texas respecting Timothy Cole; just two cases to which one may point. Such cases are replete, and so represent the wild west.

William R. Buckley

The word "never" would imply it has not changed, ever. Meaning it has never evolved. The legal system is a societal system just like any other system, like life is a system...one which evolves.

I genuinely believe it is this triangle as developed by Whitacre which represents words synonymous to what you are using.....the legal system isnt perfect, but nothing is, it only adapts as quickly as it can to the needs of society and the information it is given over time.

You can replace robustness with failure, complexity with learning, evolution with...evolution in my opinion at least for a clearer understanding.

Whitacre (2010). "Degeneracy: a link between evolvability, robustness and complexity in biological systems". Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling. 7 (6): 6. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-7-6. Retrieved 2011-03-11.

I'd highly advocate anyone read the work this comes from as well. Article Degeneracy: A link between evolvability, robustness and comp...

Governments & the legal system do learn lessons. For a system to meet and match with the needs of its environment, it must evolve though...that takes information/time thrown into it.

The general system must FAIL for it to ever be used at deeper levels in the first place. Then, if it comes to court, the system begins to LEARN, and HOPEFULLY there's an outcome, that OUTCOME WILL EXPONENTIATE the learning curve of the legal system. Unfortunately, most people are greedy, risk-adverse, scared, uncertain, etc. - especially when expensive lawyers are involved and one is a client with little knowledge of the field and you're being advised to settle or go to court (hopefully the advisor is ethically centered...but lawyers are humans too) based upon their knowledge, ethics, belief, and then, undeniably, their own self gain/risk-adversity.

If the lawyer is doing pro-bono work then they may be more inclined to really go for it, even at a gamble - depends upon other factors in their life as well...if not...then they may inject hostility...or...you never know - as the outcome depends upon their performance as well in the former; in the later they have incentive to just prolong things.

Is this all they think about? No? But when do they bias their actions?

When you can prove it against a lawyer fighting for the sake of themselves...or you can contact the disciplinary board of the state (a rather evil thing to do though...as they are screwed for life then).

Unfortunately, you almost have to "sell" a case to a lawyer to get them to take it on contingency. Yeah..explain to the expert why they should listen to something you know little about. That's why most want money up front. Really, I feel this fact both balances and corrupts things....as it prevents the system from being overwhelmed with small conflicts but also creates a barrier to a realm where the system truly does reach the utmost of fairness - however that barrier is only passable by either A) Knowledge, Experience, Lots of Courage or B) Money.

One thing I very much dislike about the legal system is the fact that too many people "settle." You can go to pacer.gov and look up nearly every court case ever...well most parts of it. They tend to ALWAYS settle because the implications of setting a precedent can be awestrikening...even for both parties, BUT it is the fact that there is not an outcome and the "settlement" is never made public that slows down the ability for it to evolve in the first place!

-----------------------------------------

One thing I will say is being pushed through the system causes one's eyes to become wide open and filled with knowledge...power even. You don't have to go to law school to represent yourself; and I don't know how much of an advantage/disadvantage that gives you...but I've had lawyers tell me it would be the stupidest thing ever......how biased is that opinion though?

I suppose there's only one way to find out.....or two...if you get a good power on your sample size of real advice.

Then again, try googling "what to do about a pro se' plaintiff/defendant" as if you were a lawyer. I believe it's something they struggle with.

In the end, Coercion, Corruption, Hypocrisy are all there, but they are all part of a cycle of evolution (all of which I've been pushed through too...painfully, but which has made me learn quite a bit). In fact, enough to stand up for myself in what I believe is correct, but in the end I know only a jury of one's common sense peers decides that (I always go back to that when thinking about things)....and that makes things much clearer.

All of these components exist in society regardless of whether or not they are written down too. They are implied. Do this, don't do that...because....

The problem with the "law" is that it is still growing, forever will be growing, and forever will adapt to the needs of society. That and people aren't adequately educated as to their rights or to reality. And then additionally, the vampiric fangs some lawyers will show.....

I advocate learning one's rights so much I had an idea for a codecademy type website where special learning...based on sound teaching principles.....and even...gamified techniques are programmed so that the common man can learn what the "privileged" know. Then again, I have alot of ideas. The amount of horror stories I've heard from this lack of knowledge to common society disgusts me.

I'd liken the fairness of the law almost to a game of chess nowadays, but at least we have fewer wars. Then again, if you break into the barrier of real justice and fairness (jury...federal court...thorough understanding of the law...or tons of money....it's a VERY fair system, but that's the issue with it.) The sometimes you hear of highly unfair situations are likely biased due to negativity bias the news just wants to exploit.

The law, global law is and will become more fair, symmetrical, and even based on MERIT instead of money and exploitation just as society evolves.

Law points out which actions are acceptable, by whom, and which are unacceptable, by whom, in a given societal context. Societies are people establishing who will dominate, and at whose expense, within their context. Law is provided to protect some who are guilty of acts of coercion, corruption, and hypocrisy, while punishing others for the same. The law serves as a tool of, not a definer of human nature.

The attributes exist in society because of human nature, not because the society is law-based. Yes, the law aids the artful execution of these characteristics. The presence of law reoresents an inequity of piwer.

Over the years, no respondent has countered my assertion. Bottom line is that no government is good government, and this view is rather consistent with my view, me being an anarchistic libertarian.