This post has received lots of traffic over the past few days, even more than the ones immediately previous (as hard as that might be to believe), due to a referral by StumbleUpon.

Perhaps Alex would be willing to run a re-write (with your inclusions) in Nexus.

“I’m just an American non-lawyer from fly-over country, but I thought the ultimate purpose of the law was justice.”
As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was walking up the stairs of the Supreme Court building a man shouted to him: “Do justice!”
Holmes shot back, “This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.”

What we think you are referring to is was is called natural law, as opposed to positve law or legal realism.

The correct interpretation, according to Frank Bastiat, would be that the law is not to promote justice, but to prevent injustice.

Of course this is but one perspective, and rehabilitation could probably be more accurately described as an outcome of the law, specifically criminal law, rather than a purpose.

Keep in mind though that the post was not fully intended to be taken as a serious legal commentary.

The way I see it:

Sauron holds ownership in the ring through accession.

He is dispossessed by Isildur who now holds possession in the ring.

Isildur loses the ring (he has an intent to exclude made manifest but no physical control) when it slips off his finger as he was swimming in the Auduin river to escape from Orcs.

The ring was found by Déagol.

He is dispossessed by Sméagol (Gollum).

Gollum loses the ring, it is found by Bilbo.

Bilbo gifts the ring to Frodo.

Gollum restores his possession of the ring, seconds later it is then destroyed (and all property held in it disapears).

Here we have a property hiearchy with one owner and a series of possessors. Biblo states: “[The ring] is mine isn’t it? I found it.” This seems to be laying a claim of ownership through finding. But finding only lets a finder hold possession in a thing, it does not extinguish the rights of those higher up on the hierarchy. Anderson v. Gouldberg states: “possession is good title against all the world except those having better title.” Gandalf seems to know this as he tells Biblo to “[s]top posessing [the ring].” Nor does it matter that several of the possessors (e.g. Isildur and Sméagol) obtained possession by dispossessing others – that does not change the dispossessor’s rights vis-à-vis a third party.

So it seems at no point did Sauron’s ownership of the ring elapse. What of the claim of abandonment?

On the one hand, Sauron thought that the Ring had been destroyed which would support Simpson v. Gowers definition of abandonment as a “giving up, a total desertion, and absolute relinquishment.” And 3000 years have passed which is a considerable lapse of time.

On the other hand, as Stewart states: “As the practical or monetary value of a chattel increases, so in my view does the difficulty of inferring abandonment, i.e., an owner normally would not abandon an expensive item.” The extreme value of the Ring (it could be used to conquer all Middle Earth) cuts against an abandoment. As well after receiving notice about the existance of the ring he tried to take possession of the ring (he is described as “seeking it, seeking it, and all his thoughts [are] bent on it.”.

Certainly it seems likely that 3,000 years well exceeded the limitations period. Therefore, even if an abandoment has not occured Sauron has lost his right to legal recourse. As far as Canadian law goes however he would still have a self-help remedy, e.g. sending Nazgûl out to seize the ring.