I could never believe in the rule of law again Essay

I could never imagine in the hold of virtue again. Says David, reflecting on the events of 1948. Why does he surface to this conclusion?Larry Watsons Montana 1948 is a story set at Bentrock, Montanan focuses on the family struggles of the Haydens between loyalty and thoice. David Hayden, the adult narrator, looks back at the summer when he was twelve years old, and recalls all the life-changing events which completely lead to his hesitancy of the command of rectitude. Young David once believed in the rule of law, and believed the adult is pure to uphold evaluator, but on the contrary, what unveiled before him is how the Hayden family neglect the law and abuse power, is how his granddad attempts to protect his criminal son, is how uncle Franks misdeeds is cover throughout.Davids perspectives on the rule of law is initially influenced by the behavior the members of his family abuse their powers. In the position of sheriff in generation, the Hayden family is the virtuoso enf orce the law all the time, even above the law. Knowing when to look and when to look remote is the principle of grandfather Julian, as a former sheriff, who was a ascendant man who drew sustenance and strength from controlling others. It is a mutual opposition of corruption as law is not taking seriously. As for Wesley, although he seems not get a hang of it, he actually lived gayly and proudly under Julians power at the start.This is homely when David recounts his drunken father said to Gail They couldnt arrest us-we are the law. after(prenominal) 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 existence punished. David was shocked when he discovered that both 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 incessantly dominant.The light of justice is getting dim and dim in re natural process to the two main characters action. Nave as David, could originally believe his grandfather will take care of everything, if Wes chose to tell on Frank. Hell shingle him up and shout in Franks face that hed better straighten upand fly right or therell be hell to requital. 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, contempt 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 testify of inequality before law based on racism. His following 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 t he law first.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 obligation 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 standt help but ask How more secrets had our town agreed to keep? And since any human community cleverness 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 represent justice. When the family loyalty clashes with justice, the rule of law has to compromise.