Clan or Constitution? The Choice of a Lifetime (Hypothetical Thought Experiment)

When people reflect on the importance of laws, they generally do so with the intention of building a better society. However, at times the spirit of the law can differ from its technical application—especially within closed, clan-based systems. It becomes easier to justify compromise when the victims are viewed as outsiders, whether by race, religion, politics, or any other distinction. What may seem like a minor deviation from fairness can actually mark a step toward clannism—a system of loyalty that undermines constitutional principles and broader societal values.

This thought experiment is intended to explore how hate and corruption can intertwine, distorting justice and creating victims in systems that lack appropriate checks and balances. In such environments, loyalty to one’s social groups often supersedes commitment to the true purpose of law. When poor decisions harm individuals, there is often little appetite to correct them—leaving injustices buried until they are rediscovered much later.

Those who believe in the higher purpose of institutions and laws advocate for fidelity to the social contract, emphasizing that legal principles are essential to a strong functioning society. Yet, without formal mechanisms to uphold integrity, such ideals can be dismissed as mere wishful thinking. Wise leaders understand the rationale behind laws and resist using distorted interpretations to justify the unjustifiable, especially when doing so contradicts foundational documents like the Constitution (or others).

In this example, perpetrators were allegedly coached to inflict maximum harm and were granted immunity before engaging in misbehaviors. Despite the known corrosive effects of corruption through employment and social networks, there was greater concern for protecting friends, clan members, and in-group allies than for doing what was right. Victims and whistleblowers were openly retaliated against, false rumors used to dehumanized, false testimony and courts became tools for in-group enrichment with no recourse for victims (Once that happens the system is closed unless a higher legal and moral authority emerges.).

Courts may have ultimately held the victims responsible, driven by internal clan pressures and a tendency to mistreat vulnerable individuals—though such behavior does not reflect the majority of ethical professionals who deserve our respect (Most are very good people protecting the rest of us). The upolding of different laws for different kinds of people should always be rare (not based in merit or purpose). Each person involved faces a moral choice. Those choices shape the character of decision-makers and define whether their allegiance lies with clannish interests or with constitutional values. 

The higher principles being of less importance in our example. The Camel/Elephant in passing an Eye of the Needle saying comes forward (In a more philosophical spiritual than religious lens because there are broad principles that apply across religions and cultures. "In God we Trust" is placed in every courtroom to remind us of that higher moral order. Many have made a choice of a lifetime long before they contemplated the essentials of the issue based on prior patterns of thinking. i.e. other victims. Believing and Beliefs-Underpinnings)

As referenced in When Corruption Is Entrenched, such systems are:

1. Perpetrated by networks that

2. Operate according to stable, institutionalized norms and practices

3. Serve political or social functions, whether by design or dysfunction.

*This is a philosophical thought experiment for learning purposes so take with a grain of salt. We will write in a positive ending but must first explore the dark side of corruption unfettered. You are free to post your opinion as long as they are well thought out.