quote: Off the top of my head: systematic review by elected officials, where questionable laws are brought to the people, on which ever level the laws exist (local, state, federal), with the option of judicial review of constitutionality.
To quote West Wing, we already have such a system: they're called elections. It's not perfect, but if you think that the transition to a system such as you described would be without serious difficulties either, I think you're kidding yourself.
quote:Make our representatives work for their money...yes, the special elections would cost the country, but having a "tight ship" is a worthwhile expense I say.
The problem here is that you're advocating, in the US system, even more elections when already as things stand the real biggest reason elected officials don't get a whole lot done is because they're campaigning so much. It's not that they're lazy, because goodness knows it ain't easy to get elected or re-elected. It's because, among other things, they have to work really hard at things that, well, probably ain't in the country's best interest.
Frequent special elections don't seem to be a way to make the ship tighter, but rather a way to add even more campaigning and lobbying to a government already blown way up with both.
The question needs to be asked, from a macro vantage point: what harm do these old, nasty laws really do our country? Well, the answer to that question is that it depends. For example, suppose a sodomy law were enforced somewhere as Card has advocated in the past (and hopefully has dropped now, but I don't know). Doing so would actually serve to weaken opposition to homosexuality and to weaken support for such laws.
In spite of fighting, kicking and screaming, anti-homosexual agendas are gradually losing the argument in the court of public opinion. Thirty years ago, weird archaic laws about miscegenation and multi-racial travel were in a similar situation: they highlighted the issue which strengthened removing such laws, not helped endorse them.
Government, especially on the federal level, is not going to be a tool that can be used quickly and very often not very precisely, either. We have so many bad, silly, weird, or simply obsolete but not morally objectionable laws on the books because, hey, we're a country of hundreds of millions and we're hundreds of years old. I suggest the problem you're pointing out, Stone_Wolf, is both not as substantial as you suggest and it's mostly taking care of itself.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Fascinating...direct democracy...kind of appealing.
Orincoro: I don't really understand your point.
Rakeesh: Just to clarify, the special elections would be for the questionable laws, not for the representatives. I'm suggesting that this duty of legal review just be tacked on to our preexisting senators and congress-people's job description.
You make an interesting point that these older, out of date laws, when extremists (how it hurts my heart to classify OSC in this category) call for their enforcement, it only hastens their removal from the books.
I don't think it is a substantial problem, just a fundamental one, if that makes sense. In other words, does this cause problems on a daily basis in the lives of average Americans? No, it really does not. Is it a problem that could undermine the structure we base our system on and allow for a legal loophole for the repression of...well, depending on the law, anyone that law enforcement personnel wishes to F with...yes.
I think of it this way: Ever seen Hoarders? They often have brand new, perfectly useable items amid the junk...and if they just cleaned out the crap they don't need, they wouldn't have such a problem which makes their whole house nonfunctional. Are our laws yet to the point of hoard? No, but let's keep our house clean.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just to clarify, the special elections would be for the questionable laws, not for the representatives. I'm suggesting that this duty of legal review just be tacked on to our preexisting senators and congress-people's job description.
It would amount to much the same thing, or at least the same thing at one degree of separation.
quote:I don't think it is a substantial problem, just a fundamental one, if that makes sense. In other words, does this cause problems on a daily basis in the lives of average Americans? No, it really does not. Is it a problem that could undermine the structure we base our system on and allow for a legal loophole for the repression of...well, depending on the law, anyone that law enforcement personnel wishes to F with.
But...again, we've got a system for this, Stone_Wolf. When such laws actually become part of the present instead of relics of the past, our representative system can deal with them.
quote:I think of it this way: Ever seen Hoarders? They often have brand new, perfectly useable items amid the junk...and if they just cleaned out the crap they don't need, they wouldn't have such a problem which makes their whole house nonfunctional. Are our laws yet to the point of hoard? No, but let's keep our house clean.
This comparison doesn't really hold up at all. As you've said in the same post, the laws don't pose a daily problem, and it only depends on a variety of factors if they're going to be a problem at all. The people on Hoarders, I've never watched the show but seen commercials, their homes are always filled with clutter. They can't ever get rid of it without help, on the show. It's always an impediment. Not like this thing with archaic laws at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would amount to much the same thing, or at least the same thing at one degree of separation.
How would people voting to keep or abolish laws be nearly the same thing as politicians having to campaign to get elected?
quote: When such laws actually become part of the present instead of relics of the past, our representative system can deal with them.
Then why don't they?
quote:...an old city ordinance in Cleveland, Ohio prohibits women from wearing patent leather shoes in public. The reason? Shiny footwear could afford a nearby gentleman an unintentional peep show.
If you're a woman living in Michigan, you might want to check with your husband before heading to the hair stylist. According to state law, your hair belongs to your spouse and you'll need his permission before you can alter it. When visiting Charlotte, North Carolina, don't plan on packing light. According to city law, you must be swathed in at least 16 yards of fabric before stepping out into public. Even in fashion forward New York City, there are laws concerning how a woman dresses. In the Big Apple, wearing clingy or body-hugging clothing carries a $25 dollar fine.
And in Memphis, Tennessee, women can't drive a car unless there is a man with a red flag in front of the car warning the other people on the road.
quote:This comparison doesn't really hold up at all.
As I said, we are not at that stage, and you must surely realize, that the people on hoarders didn't buy the house, move in and pile junk up to the windows, it is a gradual process whose end result is a nonfunctional house. As I clearly said, we are not there yet, but if we do not "sweep up clutter" the problem will only get worse.
Our police and judges are obligated to enforce the law. Even the stupid, old, crazy ones. If law enforcement can simply ignore laws that they determine to be "silly" or "bad"...well, that is one slippery damn slope.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:On Sunday (in Vermont) it is against the law for a woman to walk down the street unless her husband is walking behind her at least twenty paces with a musket on his shoulder.
In Virginia bathtubs must be installed in the yard because it is illegal to put a tub in the house.
A husband owns his wife's clothes in Michigan. He can follow her if she leaves him and legally take every piece of clothing off of her.
The birds in New Jersey are taken care of, it is the law that cats wear three bells so that birds will know where they are at all times.
There is a law (in Georgia) that requires anyone who attends church on Sunday to have a loaded rifle.
An old law in Boston says that a person is not allowed to take more than one bath per week.
quote:How would people voting to keep or abolish laws be nearly the same thing as politicians having to campaign to get elected?
Who do you think would get closely involved with a constant ongoing political process like you're describing? I'm not sure how long the list would be, but I suspect somewhere near the top would be 'politicians'.
quote:Then why don't they?
They do. It's just that you're defining 'deal with them' as 'remove them from the books entirely, whether or not they're ever enforced'. You're making a circular argument: the only way to deal with these old laws is to deal with them, and dealing with them means an ongoing series of special initiatives, votes, elections, etc.
quote:As I said, we are not at that stage, and you must surely realize, that the people on hoarders didn't buy the house, move in and pile junk up to the windows, it is a gradual process whose end result is a nonfunctional house. As I clearly said, we are not there yet, but if we do not "sweep up clutter" the problem will only get worse.
This is another circular argument. You're suggesting the problem is already really bad, and because it's really bad that proves that it's going to get worse. I don't grant your initial premise. The problem isn't that bad, for the reasons I and others have described. Again, I ask: how much actual trouble does this 'problem' really cause for Americans? You admitted yourself the answer to that question.
quote:Our police and judges are obligated to enforce the law. Even the stupid, old, crazy ones. If law enforcement can simply ignore laws that they determine to be "silly" or "bad"...well, that is one slippery damn slope.
I suspect if you ask most people, "Do police and judges," and by the way, judges don't enforce the law, exactly, "have an equal obligation to enforce laws against robbery and murder as they do against patent leather footwear on women?" the answer would be, "Of course not!"
Our society makes judgments like these all the time. It's a question of limited resources. We don't have an absolute equal obligation to enforce every single law in all cases. It is, in fact, built into the system: hello plea bargains.
As for your sources, I'm not sure what they're intended to prove. They prove that there are plenty of silly laws still on the books. They don't demonstrate even a little that they're still a problem.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who do you think would get closely involved with a constant ongoing political process like you're describing? I'm not sure how long the list would be, but I suspect somewhere near the top would be 'politicians'.
Your initial objection was that, campaigning takes so much time..."The problem here is that you're advocating, in the US system, even more elections when already as things stand the real biggest reason elected officials don't get a whole lot done is because they're campaigning so much. It's not that they're lazy, because goodness knows it ain't easy to get elected or re-elected." so their "involvement" is hardly the same thing, and trying to pass it off as the same concern is dubious.
quote:They do. It's just that you're defining 'deal with them' as 'remove them from the books entirely, whether or not they're ever enforced'. You're making a circular argument: the only way to deal with these old laws is to deal with them, and dealing with them means an ongoing series of special initiatives, votes, elections, etc.
It is not even remotely a circular argument, as I am not complaining about archaic laws being enforced, but them actually being on the books.
quote:This is another circular argument. You're suggesting the problem is already really bad, and because it's really bad that proves that it's going to get worse. I don't grant your initial premise.
Again, not a circular argument...I said straight up that it isn't a big problem, but a systemic one. Nor did I say that anything proves anything. Please do not put (incorrect) words in my mouth. A crack in the dam which doesn't leak isn't a big problem, but it can be an indicator that work must be done to maintain the system integrity. That OSC is calling for anti sodomy laws to be enforced is a crack in the dam.
quote:The problem isn't that bad, for the reasons I and others have described.
You mean Orincoro telling me I am wrong? I'll just assume this was poorly worded and not a dishonest attempt to make it appear as if there were lots of people who have stated their disagreement with my thoughts, as I am trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, as I have asked them to do for me.
quote:Again, I ask: how much actual trouble does this 'problem' really cause for Americans? You admitted yourself the answer to that question.
Is it hubris to ask a question like it hasn't been answered when it already has? And I didn't admit it, like it was a point in contention that I lost, I stated it so you could understand my views, which you seem to be having trouble groking.
quote:I suspect if you ask most people, "Do police and judges," and by the way, judges don't enforce the law, exactly, "have an equal obligation to enforce laws against robbery and murder as they do against patent leather footwear on women?" the answer would be, "Of course not!"
Our society makes judgments like these all the time. It's a question of limited resources. We don't have an absolute equal obligation to enforce every single law in all cases. It is, in fact, built into the system: hello plea bargains.
Now here at least is a real point of argument. I don't agree, but it actually addresses what I've said unlike your other comments.
quote:As for your sources, I'm not sure what they're intended to prove. They prove that there are plenty of silly laws still on the books.
They prove that there are plenty of silly laws still on the books.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much time and effort should the various legislatures spend on weeding through the statutes for old laws and then voting on whether or not to get them off the books?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your initial objection was that, campaigning takes so much time..."The problem here is that you're advocating, in the US system, even more elections when already as things stand the real biggest reason elected officials don't get a whole lot done is because they're campaigning so much. It's not that they're lazy, because goodness knows it ain't easy to get elected or re-elected." so their "involvement" is hardly the same thing, and trying to pass it off as the same concern is dubious.
This process you're describing would become involved in campaigns. It would be something politicians would have to campaign on-their support or opposition to the latest in a constant stream of law-revision. I acknowledged that the drain wouldn't be as severe. Your claim that I'm suggesting it's the same concern is, well, flat-out wrong.
quote:It is not even remotely a circular argument, as I am not complaining about archaic laws being enforced, but them actually being on the books.
It's circular because your complaint is founded on a belief that having them on the books causes problems, and your evidence that they cause problems is that they're on the books.
quote: Again, not a circular argument...I said straight up that it isn't a big problem, but a systemic one. Nor did I say that anything proves anything. Please do not put (incorrect) words in my mouth. A crack in the dam which doesn't leak isn't a big problem, but it can be an indicator that work must be done to maintain the system integrity. That OSC is calling for anti sodomy laws to be enforced is a crack in the dam.
You said that laws are the strength of our country, etc., therefore having bad archaic laws on the books weakens us as a country. Sounds like you're suggesting it's a bad problem to me. I haven't put words into your mouth. You're welcome to point specifically to where I did so, or revise your statement about laws being the strength of our country.
As for a crack in a dam, I don't know, but to me a crack in a dam even one that doesn't leak sounds like a serious problem. It's another poor example, much like your comparison to Hoarders. What it's not is a catastrophic example. One guy calling for old laws to be enforced isn't, in itself, evidence of a problem-again not unless you claim that having the old laws there to be enforced is itself a problem. You even agreed that suggestions like Card's actually hurt the intent of the stated law, as often as not.
Hell, look around here, on an OSC fan site, and tell me which agenda you feel is best served by Card's suggestion we conditionally enforce that law, really.
quote:You mean Orincoro telling me I am wrong? I'll just assume this was poorly worded and not a dishonest attempt to make it appear as if there were lots of people who have stated their disagreement with my thoughts, as I am trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, as I have asked them to do for me.
Alright, man, I'm trying to be nice here and I'm disagreeing with your ideas here and not taking shots at you, but man, dude, now you're implying I might've been dishonest in something I said, and suggesting you're taking the high road by giving people the benefit of the doubt. Please drop the victim angle. You're not being victimized here, I'm not putting words into your mouth, and I wasn't being dishonest.
I said 'others' when I should've said 'Orincoro and possibly kmbboots and Mucus'. You could've pointed out, "Actually, there's only Orincoro."
"Was that poorly worded or just dishonest?" is not a polite, neutral question to ask, and I'm not going to pretend it was, Stone_Wolf. If you're going to go that route with me again, just fast forward to the part where you insist not to be spoken to, OK?
quote:Is it hubris to ask a question like it hasn't been answered when it already has? And I didn't admit it, like it was a point in contention that I lost, I stated it so you could understand my views, which you seem to be having trouble groking.
You've answered the question-"...it only hastens their removal from the books," and "No, it really does not."-but you're still pursuing your argument, that this is a potentially serious long-term problem that could undermine our government and our country. You haven't offered any evidence for that. The closest you've come is to provide examples of silly laws still on the books, not how they hurt actual people or groups of people or the country.
quote:Now here at least is a real point of argument. I don't agree, but it actually addresses what I've said unlike your other comments.
You...don't agree. What part don't you agree with? The part where judges aren't in the business of law enforcement? The part where we don't have an obligation, nor do we act like it, to enforce all laws in all cases? The part where this reality is built into our criminal-justice system? You're welcome to disagree all you like, of course. You're just wrong, though.
quote:They prove that there are plenty of silly laws still on the books.
I'm almost certain that's exactly what I said. My question, again (for all your talk about not addressing things) is, "What harm do these silly laws still do?" The answer to that question is how you decide, by the way, that the silly laws need to be gotten rid of. That's the step you've skipped three or four times now.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would imagine that the initial cleaning out might take a bit of time, but maintenance wouldn't be that time consuming. It would really depend on how legitimately busy people are...I would say that setting a deadline for the work instead of micromanaging how much time is spent would be effective, say, this percentage of laws reviewed by this date. Not every single law would require a vote, only those found to be "questionable".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would imagine that the initial cleaning out might take a bit of time, but maintenance wouldn't be that time consuming. It would really depend on how legitimately busy people are...I would say that setting a deadline for the work instead of micromanaging how much time is spent would be effective, say, this percentage of laws reviewed by this date. Not every single law would require a vote, only those found to be "questionable".
OK, hypothetical: one side of the aisle decides (as often happens) that they don't like a law favored by the other side of the aisle. Bam! Time for a committee meeting on whether it's 'questionable' or not.
Goodness knows what government at all levels need is a way for itself to get less work done. This idea is...incredibly vague. Not even in the sense of needing to have some idea of approximate amounts of laws or anything, but vague in the sense of even identifying the laws that need to be reviewed.
The patent leather shoe law is an easy one. How do you avoid other, less questionable, laws from being swept up in this process?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I would imagine that the initial cleaning out might take a bit of time, but maintenance wouldn't be that time consuming. It would really depend on how legitimately busy people are...I would say that setting a deadline for the work instead of micromanaging how much time is spent would be effective, say, this percentage of laws reviewed by this date. Not every single law would require a vote, only those found to be "questionable".
How much do you think it would be? Remember, they need to not only dig through the statutes - there a a lot of those - and come to agreement on how to vote.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I acknowledged that the drain wouldn't be as severe. Your claim that I'm suggesting it's the same concern is, well, flat-out wrong.
I must have missed that acknowledgement entirely, would you please quote it?
quote:It's circular because your complaint is founded on a belief that having them on the books causes problems, and your evidence that they cause problems is that they're on the books.
My complaint is not that it causes problems, but that it is a weakness which can be exploited. Surely you can understand the difference between "causes problems" and "giant loophole which can be used against citizens and might cause an undermining of the system". The fact that some of our laws are displayed as a tool for humor should help to illustrate what I'm talking about.
quote:...you're suggesting it's a bad problem to me. I haven't put words into your mouth. You're welcome to point specifically to where I did so, or revise your statement about laws being the strength of our country.
It's putting words in my mouth when I repeatedly say, "It's not a big problem" and you say "you're suggesting it's a bad problem." When I compare it to maintaining cleanliness in a house and you say it's not hoarding. This is maintenance of the system. Maintenance is not there to overcome major problems, it's there to prevent them by never allowing problems to become severe.
quote:"Was that poorly worded or just dishonest?" is not a polite, neutral question to ask, and I'm not going to pretend it was, Stone_Wolf. If you're going to go that route with me again, just fast forward to the part where you insist not to be spoken to, OK?
It might not be polite, but your statement that "The problem isn't that bad, for the reasons I and others have described." is misleading, nonfactual and inappropriate. So, be the big man, say you said it wrong and drop the assumptions of my motivations. You saying something out of hand doesn't make me a victim, and me pointing it out, while not the most polite thing I've ever done in my life, is not an incongruous response.
quote:The part where judges aren't in the business of law enforcement?
quote:Law enforcement in the United States is one of three major components of the criminal justice system of the United States, along with courts and corrections. Although there exists an inherent interrelatedness between the different groups that make up the criminal justice system based on their crime deterrence purpose, each component operates independently from one another. However, the judiciary is vested with the power to make legal determinations regarding the conduct of the other two components.
Source. Judges are a part of the criminal justices system. They are sworn to uphold the law, just like police. That you are nitpicking the words "law enforcement" vs "justice system" is silly.
quote:The part where we don't have an obligation, nor do we act like it, to enforce all laws in all cases? The part where this reality is built into our criminal-justice system? You're welcome to disagree all you like, of course. You're just wrong, though.
Again, judges, prosecutors and police are sworn to uphold the law...I've glanced at their oaths, and no where does it mention that they should uphold only the "good" laws.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
posted
Okay, off the top of my head, you have a committee of say five representatives who are reviews laws A-Am. When one is found to be "questionable" by one of the members, they bring it before the committee, and if 3/5 agree it is questionable, then it goes on a ballet to the people, either: A) Let stand. B) Remove. or C) Rewrite. The vast majority of laws will never be flagged, simply read and reviewed and upheld. Make many separate committees to review different sections of the law books and crank it out.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I must have missed that acknowledgement entirely, would you please quote it?
"It would amount to much the same thing, or at least the same thing at one degree of separation." You even replied directly to this remark, quoting it in a post of yours. I'm not sure how you can claim to have missed the acknowledgement when you quoted the acknowledgement yourself.
quote:My complaint is not that it causes problems, but that it is a weakness which can be exploited. Surely you can understand the difference between "causes problems" and "giant loophole which can be used against citizens and might cause an undermining of the system". The fact that some of our laws are displayed as a tool for humor should help to illustrate what I'm talking about.
You also admitted yourself that when someone does try to exploit such a loophole, it will often backfire. That is to say, attempting to enforce bad, archaic laws will-when it's attempted at all-draw attention to the law, hasten its removal, and help to address lingering prejudices. We see it right here on OSC's site, when people object strongly to his advice to jail homosexuals.
quote:It's putting words in my mouth when I repeatedly say, "It's not a big problem" and you say "you're suggesting it's a bad problem." When I compare it to maintaining cleanliness in a house and you say it's not hoarding. This is maintenance of the system. Maintenance is not there to overcome major problems, it's there to prevent them by never allowing problems to become severe.
You're sending mixed messages on whether or not it's a big problem. On one hand, laws are the strength of our country and bad laws make us weaker. On the other hand it's not a big problem. On the other hand we're building towards Hoarders-on the other hand it's like a crack in a dam that isn't leaking. You're all over the place. On your side of the computer screen, it may seem like you're expressing your ideas clearly and consistently but you're simply not.
Anyway, again you're suggesting the system needs maintenance. You haven't, y'know, demonstrated that except to say that these bad archaic laws need to go because we've got these bad archaic laws-if the laws are exploited spitefully, you already acknowledged it will backfire.
quote: It might not be polite, but your statement that "The problem isn't that bad, for the reasons I and others have described." is misleading, nonfactual and inappropriate. So, be the big man, say you said it wrong and drop the assumptions of my motivations. You saying something out of hand doesn't make me a victim, and me pointing it out, while not the most polite thing I've ever done in my life, is not an incongruous response.
First of all, I already did. So drop the 'be a big man' stuff. Second, why on Earth was it 'inappropriate'? You're going to talk about assuming motivations? I mentioned others because two people have asked pointed questions about why your idea might not be so good. Third, I challenge you to stand behind your claim that, "Did you misspeak, or were you lying?" is just 'impolite'. It's not just impolite. It's your not-uncommon martyr game, complaining-indirectly-of being attacked when your ideas are being attacked.
If you disagree, well then everytime you get something wrong, I'll point it out by saying, "Stone_Wolf, did you misspeak or were you lying when..." and you can talk to me about how I'm just being 'impolite'.
quote:udges are a part of the criminal justices system. They are sworn to uphold the law, just like police. That you are nitpicking the words "law enforcement" vs "justice system" is silly.
No, you're right, my expecting you to be accurate and pointing out that judges are different from cops is just silly.
quote:Again, judges, prosecutors and police are sworn to uphold the law...I've glanced at their oaths, and no where does it mention that they should uphold only the "good" laws.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I could've sworn, though, that our system gives the criminal justice system...what's the word...discretion about when and how they're going to enforce the law. The fact is, you know what I'm saying about this is true. You can't have watched the news and not know it's true over, well, anytime in the 21st century. Here's some phrases to demonstrate: "decided not to press charges," and "plea bargain" and "on condition of immunity" and so on and so forth. The oath you linked doesn't bind our officials to enforce all laws equally all the time. They've got discretion that must be exercised carefully.
You can disagree all you like, but again, you'll just be wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm on my way out of the door, so I can only give you the response you deserve and not the one I would like to give with quotes and detail, here it is:
quote:You can disagree all you like, but again, you'll just be wrong.
I'm glad you have decided this and declared it. Clearly no further discussion is warranted, right? Okay then.
Now back to the discussion.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I decided it because I looked at what happens in our system, and described it. So, yeah, I declared it, because it reflects reality. You're welcome to provide, y'know, evidence that what I said doesn't stem from looking at our system and how it works, but until then our claims simply aren't on equal footing, no matter how firmly you suggest they are.
For example, the oath you linked to: you're welcome to point out, at any time, where in our laws or anywhere else it is required of elected officials that they always, with equal tenacity, enforce all laws in all cases.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tell me how a police officer giving someone a warning or a DA giving someone a plea bargain (people using discretion on the punishment of laws) are the same thing as them deciding which laws should and should not be enforced at all?
A warning, a plea bargain for either testimony or to guarantee some punishment vs the risk of acquittal, are all legal enforcements of the law. I'm not saying that all laws need to be perused to the harshest possible degree. But that they should all be enforced. That the members of our justice system use their judgment about how to use the law fairly is a blessing, but that judges, police and prosecutors can completely disregard a fully legitimate law entirely is a dangerous situation, and flies completely in the face of their purpose, the law, their obligation and not to mention their oaths of office.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tell me how a police officer giving someone a warning or a DA giving someone a plea bargain (people using discretion on the punishment of laws) are the same thing as them deciding which laws should and should not be enforced at all?
Deciding to give someone a warning when the law prescribes a particular act as a crime requiring a fine or a trial is exactly a violation of your statement that started this whole falafel. Viz,
quote:I myself am a believer that we should enforce all the laws on the books rigorously
Are you backing off of that statement now, and only saying laws that cannot be enforced at all should be removed from the books (spending rather a lot of effort for getting rid of a bunch of things that are never used)?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tell me how a police officer giving someone a warning or a DA giving someone a plea bargain (people using discretion on the punishment of laws) are the same thing as them deciding which laws should and should not be enforced at all?
This is a question which answers itself, actually. It's the same thing because...well, particularly in the first case, it's the same thing.
Cops aren't always going, for example, to enforce the speed limit. People go 5-10mph over all the time, all over the country, with impunity. Nor do they enforce every noise violation, or stop every single person playing music too loudly, or with tinted windows-even when they have time. It took me a few seconds to come up with those examples-many more will occur to you as well. As a society, we don't mind this. We realize, "Hey, law enforcement has limited resources-including time-and some laws are more important than others. Having a cop patrolling a busy road at rush hour or after bars close on a holiday weekend might be more important than busting that guy who threw his can of soda out the window of his car."
quote: A warning, a plea bargain for either testimony or to guarantee some punishment vs the risk of acquittal, are all legal enforcements of the law. I'm not saying that all laws need to be perused to the harshest possible degree. But that they should all be enforced. That the members of our justice system use their judgment about how to use the law fairly is a blessing, but that judges, police and prosecutors can completely disregard a fully legitimate law entirely is a dangerous situation, and flies completely in the face of their purpose, the law, their obligation and not to mention their oaths of office.
Well, yes, ideally, sure. All laws should be enforced and the silly/stupid/dangerous ones should be gotten rid of quickly. But here in the real world, that kind of thing involves costs, particularly opportunity costs. Why is it dangerous to society to not constantly expunge old, silly laws that are no longer relevant or even (except very rarely) an issue in everyday life? You're the one who needs to demonstrate that there's a danger, Stone_Wolf, and the answer has to be better than 'because it's dangerous to society not to enforce all laws all the time'. That's circular reasoning.
And I note you didn't point to the oaths of office or of position where it says all laws must be enforced all the time, regardless of other considerations. Which do you think is more likely, Stone_Wolf? That all over the country, for hundreds of years, people in all walks of public service have been constantly violating their oaths and obligations in the way you're describing? Or is it possible that perhaps your interpretation isn't quite accurate?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other problem, of course, is that any law that effects group A will spur group A to advertise to the voters how it should be voted on.
The motorcycle helmet law in Florida was recently overturned. This was led by Insurance companies who discovered that motorcyclists who crashed with helmets on ended up being more costly hospital cases than motorcyclists who crashed without helmets, who were less expensive burial cases. Every group in the country will be campaigning yearly to get laws they find expensive removed, no matter how beneficial they are to the rest of us.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Deciding to give someone a warning when the law prescribes a particular act as a crime requiring a fine or a trial is exactly a violation of your statement that started this whole falafel.
Police are legally given the power to warn people instead of arrest them...the only law that actually requires that an arrest be made instantly is domestic violence. A warning is an enforcement.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is a question which answers itself, actually. It's the same thing because...well, particularly in the first case, it's the same thing.
I'm having trouble taking you seriously...let me get this straight, you are saying that if the police ever let someone off with a warning or a DA ever accepts a plea bargain to lessor charge it's the exact same thing as members of the criminal justice system completely and totally ignoring laws which are still binding no matter how old or silly they are?
quote:Why is it dangerous to society to not constantly expunge old, silly laws that are no longer relevant or even (except very rarely) an issue in everyday life?
I've already answered this...but I'll do it again: These laws can be enforced at any time, and while the likely ultimate outcome would be their removal, it wouldn't stop those poor people who were successfully prosecuted under these archaic unjust laws any less in jail or fined. That this does not happen is why it is not currently a problem, that it can is why it is dangerous. Surely know can acknowledge the difference between a current problem and possible danger.
quote:That all over the country, for hundreds of years, people in all walks of public service have been constantly violating their oaths and obligations in the way you're describing? Or is it possible that perhaps your interpretation isn't quite accurate?
It is totally unfair that we have them swear to uphold the laws of this country and then generate so many laws that they are unenforceable. But it is what it is. I would love to see a huge sweeping reform of our laws, making them easy to understand, a real delineation between laws and regulations (murder, etc vs zoning laws etc). Take a look at boot's example of a small town's laws...how could anyone ever be expected to enforce all that?
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Every group in the country will be campaigning yearly to get laws they find expensive removed, no matter how beneficial they are to the rest of us.
Welcome to democracy. It ain't pretty.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:These laws can be enforced at any time, and while the likely ultimate outcome would be their removal, it wouldn't stop those poor people who were successfully prosecuted under these archaic unjust laws any less in jail or fined. That this does not happen is why it is not currently a problem, that it can is why it is dangerous. Surely know can acknowledge the difference between a current problem and possible danger.
Surely you know the difference between a made up danger that we could just wait until the hypothetical time there's a rash of idiots trying to enforce illegal laws to deal with and a real danger?
quote:Take a look at boot's example of a small town's laws...how could anyone ever be expected to enforce all that?
Perhaps a system of law enforcement officers, inspectors, criminal, and civil courts? We do a pretty great job of enforcing "all that" right now (not that there aren't certain classes of laws I would prefer heavily reformed, but my motivation has little to do with the difficulties of enforcement). What's your evidence we don't do a good job of enforcing such laws, as implied by your "how could anyone ever be expected to enforce all that" question?
quote:Welcome to democracy. It ain't pretty.
Really, now? You're going with "if we don't do things my incredibly painful way despite having no particular problems with the current way, which is democracy per all traditional definitions, it isn't democracy!" as a rallying cry?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Surely you know the difference between a made up danger that we could just wait until the hypothetical time there's a rash of idiots trying to enforce illegal laws to deal with and a real danger?
Illegal laws?
quote:What's your evidence we don't do a good job of enforcing such laws, as implied by your "how could anyone ever be expected to enforce all that" question?
You expect me to prove a negative based on an implied claim...you have high expectations. How about, since you said, not implied, that we do "a pretty great job enforcing" all that you supply the evidence? I'm sure it will super easy and prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
quote:You're going with "if we don't do things my incredibly painful way despite having no particular problems with the current way, which is democracy per all traditional definitions, it isn't democracy!" as a rallying cry?
You're waaaay off base here friend. Democracy is people voting for stuff...and interested parties trying to influence that vote. Just like D_M described. In no way was I saying what you have me saying.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yep. Laws can be illegal. For instance, a city ordnance that violates the state constitution is illegal.
quote:You expect me to prove a negative based on an implied claim...you have high expectations. How about, since you said, not implied, that we do "a pretty great job enforcing" all that you supply the evidence? I'm sure it will super easy and prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You're the one making the unusual claim, that laws there are big gaps in enforcement of laws. We have extensive systems for enforcing such laws, and if you pick any particular one of the laws in the example code, I bet I can find numerous examples of towns enforcing it (or similar laws, since they vary by locality). That there is some vast enforcement gap in the US (beyond intentional lack of enforcement, such as the speed limit, laws against sodomy, et cetera) is your claim. Where's the evidence? It isn't like subjects like that aren't frequent targets of investigative journalism.
In fact, you can start the evidence discussion pretty easily. Just peruse the list of laws and identify some you think are not enforced due to lack of capacity.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I would love to see a huge sweeping reform of our laws, making them easy to understand, a real delineation between laws and regulations (murder, etc vs zoning laws etc). Take a look at boot's example of a small town's laws...how could anyone ever be expected to enforce all that?
