Being one of the founding principles of the modern society, “the rule of law” sustains the legitimate exercise of governmental authority in accordance with written, publicly disclosed and accepted laws. The superiority of law lies at the core of what we understand from the modern state since it is the chief factor ruling dictatorship or anarchy out and guarantees the equal treatment of every individual.

Despite all the importance attached to this substantial principle, the state authority highly needs the existence of a certain level of commitment to social values among the society. The rule of law does not go beyond an empty concept unless people, who live in the same social settings, share common moral beliefs, adhere to main principles, have sensitivity to rights of others, and respect the legal code. These are not simple issues and it is not always possible to ensure consensus on these. Yet, states only remain powerful as long as they are successful enough in these fields. Needless to say, it is much better when individuals develop inner control rather than trying to keep them within the limits of propriety and when there is no need for guardians to regulate human behavior. The primary reliance on personal ethics becomes even more important when the extreme surveillance in recent years is taken into consideration, which has been turning into an obsession. Still, outside control seems to be crucial when individuals fail to develop such an inner control. Skeptics criticize states for their reluctance of using these controlling mechanisms in some critical areas while being excessively commanding on some others.

Trying to discipline people by punishing them appears to be something too primitive. But criminal experts appear to be in agreement on a restricted punishment when offends take place. State authority should make people feel they will be fast and certainly punished in case offending the law into consideration. Inner control mechanisms are principal but the situation gets troublesome when the law mechanism fells short and totally depends on individual control systems. The possibility of victims becoming offenders is not low when law fails to ensure their safety. 

The “ongoing” investigations on fires in Germany seem to be on the way of becoming a case in point of how law can fall short in certain circumstances. The abiding investigations usually imply two different things in critical situations. The officials may indeed prefer remaining silent until a careful analysis is complete. Those investigations, on the other hand, might also refer to a tendency to cover the issue up and attempts to gain time until the case loses its popularity in the eyes of the public opinion. The latter seems to be more likely the case for the time being. Official declarations are still far away from clearly explaining what have taken place. Nazis are not the only extremists regarding loyalty to their race a higher value than appealing law. Yet, Germany seems to be reluctant to implement law in order to whitewashing what is currently happening in the country.

The acculturation process of immigrants further challenges German officials in this context. The country faces a segregation problem regarding its migrant population, including four millions of Turkish origin. Having the feeling of being discriminated within the conventional norm system, migrants are prone to be further embedded in the separation problem if things go like this. Every society is consisted of various subcultures. Still, problem arises when these subcultures are formed as a result of exclusion and/or isolation. Difference between subcultures within a society gets more and more unyielding when the existing authority cannot associate all these under a common value system. The indifference of German officials seems to be laying the grounds for further intensification of segregation in this regard. Will punishing migrants help if they do no more believe in the lawyers in Berlin and create their own manners to protect themselves?