This article is also in Chinese:
Several years ago, a justice campaign that I led sparked my interest in the rule of law. I was not a legal professional, but as a good marketer, you must first believe in the product you sell, and that is what I did. Part of it was a no‑brainer—calling on people to act in line with the law; the other, however, is less popular: holding power equally accountable to law, particularly when governments, law enforcement, and highly political institutions are involved.
Last week, the passing of Judge Frank Caprio got me thinking about another two‑sided coin of justice: procedural justice and substantive justice. Caprio, the longtime chief judge of the Providence Municipal Court, died on 20 August 2025 at the age of 88. He became world‑famous because clips from his courtroom showed a rare mix of firmness and kindness. His story helps explain why how we apply the law is just as important as what the law says.
Lawyers and philosophers use the terms procedural and substantive justice. Procedural justice is about fairness in the process: people have a chance to speak, the rules are applied the same way to everyone, and decisions are transparent. Substantive justice looks at the result: does the outcome feel fair and just? A court can follow the correct procedures and still reach a result that feels wrong to ordinary people. Both sides matter. Fair procedures build trust in the system, but fair results are what improve lives.
When people talk about the rule of law, they usually mean that no one is above the law. Clear, public rules are supposed to restrain both citizens and those who hold power. Just as important, the rule of law is meant to protect people by guaranteeing basic rights and placing limits on the state’s power. The law should be predictable, and it should apply equally. When the law serves to protect the vulnerable rather than simply punish them, it crosses over into the terrain of substantive justice—fairness in outcome as well as process. Some legal theorists draw a line between a formal rule of law (which cares mainly about clear rules and procedures) and a substantive rule of law (which says those rules must also respect fundamental rights and moral values). Scholars note that even a formal approach can’t avoid questions of justice entirely; in practice, the rule of law implies a commitment to certain fundamental rights and fairness.
Much of the public conversation around the rule of law puts the burden on ordinary people: follow the rules, pay your fines, don’t break the law. That message is important, but on its own, it is incomplete. The law’s primary job is to tame power and protect those who have little of it. When we obsess over whether people at the bottom respect the rules while turning a blind eye to abuses committed by those at the top, we miss the point. A legal system that punishes the poor for minor missteps while allowing the powerful to act with impunity betrays its own foundations. For the rule of law to mean anything, it must first safeguard the vulnerable and hold public authorities accountable. That is where procedural and substantive justice meet: the process must be fair to everyone, and the outcome must recognise unequal power dynamics.
Judge Caprio’s courtroom was a glimpse of this vision. By listening to defendants’ circumstances and using discretion to soften the impact of petty penalties, he upheld the law while shielding the vulnerable from disproportionate harm. His approach shows that the rule of law is at its most persuasive when it protects the bottom, and a good reminder of why the human element matters. He presided over minor offences, such as parking tickets and speeding. Instead of just rubber‑stamping fines, he listened to the stories behind the violations. In one widely shared clip, a young woman explained through tears that she was homeless and living in her car. Caprio used money from a charitable fund to pay most of her fine and asked whether she had enough left for food. In another case, he dismissed a ticket for a 96‑year‑old man who sped while rushing his sick son to the doctor. These examples weren’t about letting people off the hook; they were about recognising circumstances and trying to reach a fairer outcome.
Caprio also enforced the law when he thought it was warranted. When excuses were flimsy, he confirmed the fines. He made clear that empathy is not the same as leniency for its own sake—it is about judgment. This blend of listening and accountability is why many saw him as the “nicest judge” and yet respected his rulings.
Caprio’s approach illustrates the balance we need in a healthy legal system. Following proper procedures is critical—it protects everyone from arbitrary power and ensures that decisions are made openly and consistently. But the outcome should also reflect common sense and fairness. If courts operate by the book yet ignore the human cost, people lose faith in the law. On the other hand, if decisions are made purely on sympathy with no regard for rules, the system loses coherence.
For those of us who work outside the law, the lesson is simple: the rule of law is not just a slogan. It requires that ordinary people obey the law and that those in power be held to the same standards. And, as Judge Caprio showed, it can also mean applying the rules with enough flexibility to ensure that justice feels just. In a society that sometimes sees the law as either rigid or irrelevant, his example reminds us that compassion and accountability can, and should, go hand in hand.
Toward the end of his life, Caprio summed up this ethos in a speech to university graduates. He told them that he was never a traditional judge because under his robe, he carried not a badge but a heart. He also expressed his belief that personal success is not measured by how much you get but by how much you give and how many people you help. Those who hold power, he said, have an obligation to “build ladders” so others can climb up behind them. It is a vivid metaphor for the rule of law’s protective duty: the law is not meant to be a wall that locks people out but a ladder that helps them climb up. Coming from a man who spent nearly 40 years on the bench, it was a reminder that the law’s ultimate purpose is to protect and lift people, not simply to punish. In this sense, his message dovetails with substantive justice—the idea that laws and legal processes should result in outcomes that improve lives. When laws are applied with that spirit, the protective side of the rule of law and the fairness of substantive justice come together.