Laws and Legality

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In an attempt to steer clear of the emotionally charged arguments over (the subject that shall not be named here), I thought maybe we can discuss our general views about law in general.

Criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to the body of law which deals with crimes and their consequences. Criminal acts are considered offences against the whole of a community. Responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders is carried out by the state. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes passed by legislatures as well as common law, and why they criminalise some forms of behaviour. What purpose overall criminal law serves is hotly contested. Some believe criminal law is about punishing offenders because they deserve it and the victim deserves |renumeration. Others feel perhaps with enough punishment people will also be deterred from committing crimes in the first place. Perhaps criminal law is simply about removing people from society, to protect law abiding citizens by incapacitating the offender. Perhaps then, prisons can reform and rehabilitate people to go back into society. And perhaps in some way, offenders can be made to recognise their wrongs in relation to victims and make restitution for the harm. There are many more aims, which are often combined, which produces the mix of systems operating today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law

If for example, a person was charged with stealing a loaf of bread, the parameters for punishment of theft vary greatly, depending on the mitigating circumstances.

I'm curious how many people here believe that the punishment should be mandatory, for all cases, regardless of circumstances?

[Alex+R 0]

You want to have a theoretical discussion of the purpose of criminal law...on VJ? You've got to be kidding me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You want to have a theoretical discussion of the purpose of criminal law...on VJ? You've got to be kidding me.

I think that it's one of fundamental arguments that keep the debates on illegal immigration going in a circular fashion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Usually if there's enough people disobeying a particular law, the law itself becomes futile.

[Alex+R 0]

You want to have a theoretical discussion of the purpose of criminal law...on VJ? You've got to be kidding me.

I think that it's one of fundamental arguments that keep the debates on illegal immigration going in a circular fashion.

Because people can't understand the question, IMO. VJ has really changed how I look at people, especially other Americans. I used to think a lot more of them before I started spending a lot of time here. Now I understand where people are coming from, and I want to go back to when I didn't.

[no name 1]

You want to have a theoretical discussion of the purpose of criminal law...on VJ? You've got to be kidding me.

I think that it's one of fundamental arguments that keep the debates on illegal immigration going in a circular fashion.

Because people can't understand the question, IMO. VJ has really changed how I look at people, especially other Americans. I used to think a lot more of them before I started spending a lot of time here. Now I understand where people are coming from, and I want to go back to when I didn't.

ALex, VJ is a microcosm of society. If you see people any differently now, it's because you are more aware of people, nothing more.

[Alex+R 0]

You want to have a theoretical discussion of the purpose of criminal law...on VJ? You've got to be kidding me.

I think that it's one of fundamental arguments that keep the debates on illegal immigration going in a circular fashion.

Because people can't understand the question, IMO. VJ has really changed how I look at people, especially other Americans. I used to think a lot more of them before I started spending a lot of time here. Now I understand where people are coming from, and I want to go back to when I didn't.

ALex, VJ is a microcosm of society. If you see people any differently now, it's because you are more aware of people, nothing more.

Exactly.

[no name 1]

You want to have a theoretical discussion of the purpose of criminal law...on VJ? You've got to be kidding me.

I think that it's one of fundamental arguments that keep the debates on illegal immigration going in a circular fashion.

Because people can't understand the question, IMO. VJ has really changed how I look at people, especially other Americans. I used to think a lot more of them before I started spending a lot of time here. Now I understand where people are coming from, and I want to go back to when I didn't.

ALex, VJ is a microcosm of society. If you see people any differently now, it's because you are more aware of people, nothing more.

Exactly.

Living in NYC will be a very interesting time for you, I can guarantee that!

Sorry Steven.

Edited June 28, 2007 by devilette

[Alex+R 0]

You want to have a theoretical discussion of the purpose of criminal law...on VJ? You've got to be kidding me.

I think that it's one of fundamental arguments that keep the debates on illegal immigration going in a circular fashion.

Because people can't understand the question, IMO. VJ has really changed how I look at people, especially other Americans. I used to think a lot more of them before I started spending a lot of time here. Now I understand where people are coming from, and I want to go back to when I didn't.

ALex, VJ is a microcosm of society. If you see people any differently now, it's because you are more aware of people, nothing more.

Exactly.

Living in NYC will be a very interesting time for you, I can guarantee that!

Sorry Steven.

I guess if you were really sorry to Steven, you wouldn't be throwing in more passive-aggressive comments, would you?

Hm, I'm not sheltered from others' opinions. I've lived in places bigger than New York before. What's your point?

[no name 1]

You want to have a theoretical discussion of the purpose of criminal law...on VJ? You've got to be kidding me.

I think that it's one of fundamental arguments that keep the debates on illegal immigration going in a circular fashion.

Because people can't understand the question, IMO. VJ has really changed how I look at people, especially other Americans. I used to think a lot more of them before I started spending a lot of time here. Now I understand where people are coming from, and I want to go back to when I didn't.

ALex, VJ is a microcosm of society. If you see people any differently now, it's because you are more aware of people, nothing more.

Exactly.

Living in NYC will be a very interesting time for you, I can guarantee that!

Sorry Steven.

I guess if you were really sorry to Steven, you wouldn't be throwing in more passive-aggressive comments, would you?

Hm, I'm not sheltered from others' opinions. I've lived in places bigger than New York before. What's your point?

It wasn't passive aggressive. I posted, then realized I was hijacking so I apologized.

I don't know where your anger is coming from but you made it sound like VJ has opened your eyes to ugly Americans. All I meant was NYC will open your eyes to a heck of a lot more.

Whatever. I'm done being second guessed when I meant it legitimately.

PS: I doubt there are many places bigger than NYC....

Edited June 28, 2007 by devilette

[ken and mintra 0]

In an attempt to steer clear of the emotionally charged arguments over (the subject that shall not be named here), I thought maybe we can discuss our general views about law in general.

Criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to the body of law which deals with crimes and their consequences. Criminal acts are considered offences against the whole of a community. Responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders is carried out by the state. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes passed by legislatures as well as common law, and why they criminalise some forms of behaviour. What purpose overall criminal law serves is hotly contested. Some believe criminal law is about punishing offenders because they deserve it and the victim deserves |renumeration. Others feel perhaps with enough punishment people will also be deterred from committing crimes in the first place. Perhaps criminal law is simply about removing people from society, to protect law abiding citizens by incapacitating the offender. Perhaps then, prisons can reform and rehabilitate people to go back into society. And perhaps in some way, offenders can be made to recognise their wrongs in relation to victims and make restitution for the harm. There are many more aims, which are often combined, which produces the mix of systems operating today.

Anyone who breaks the law should suffer some type of punishment. There is always going to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances that have an impact on the punishment. There are good reasons for doing bad things. i.e. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your children. But that doesn't mean that because the law was broken for an understandable reason that there shouldn't be punishment. Punishment can be volunteering at a soup kitchen. Laws are necessary in society to keep social order. Look at all the countries in the world with no laws and see how out of control they are. Correlating this to our visa process can be easy. No one will be denied a visa for stealing a loaf of bread since it probably wouldn't have been prosecuted anyway. Any morals, drugs, or immigration laws that were broken in a person's past should have a HUGE impact on their ability to get a visa. A person's past history is an excellent tool to determine their future behavior. I'm just not sure why people who broke immigration and/or visa laws in the past would expect some sort of amnesty or forgiveness from the USCIS. They have already shown that they have no regard for the laws of the country that they are now wanting to call their home. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law

If for example, a person was charged with stealing a loaf of bread, the parameters for punishment of theft vary greatly, depending on the mitigating circumstances.

I'm curious how many people here believe that the punishment should be mandatory, for all cases, regardless of circumstances?

[cheeky^Wolf 0]

I believe in certain punishment for certain crimes. I also believe life should mean life. If you murder, you go on death row. No release, no parole, no early release for good behaviour. The jail terms passed vary so much from state to state and case to case. At the end of the day, you took a life, therefore yours should be taken. An eye for an eye etc.

Now now Devilette, you should ignore the baiting you have received and put Alex+R on ignore

The term "pissing in the wind" springs to mind

[ken and mintra 0]

In an attempt to steer clear of the emotionally charged arguments over (the subject that shall not be named here), I thought maybe we can discuss our general views about law in general.

Criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to the body of law which deals with crimes and their consequences. Criminal acts are considered offences against the whole of a community. Responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders is carried out by the state. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes passed by legislatures as well as common law, and why they criminalise some forms of behaviour. What purpose overall criminal law serves is hotly contested. Some believe criminal law is about punishing offenders because they deserve it and the victim deserves |renumeration. Others feel perhaps with enough punishment people will also be deterred from committing crimes in the first place. Perhaps criminal law is simply about removing people from society, to protect law abiding citizens by incapacitating the offender. Perhaps then, prisons can reform and rehabilitate people to go back into society. And perhaps in some way, offenders can be made to recognise their wrongs in relation to victims and make restitution for the harm. There are many more aims, which are often combined, which produces the mix of systems operating today.

Anyone who breaks the law should suffer some type of punishment. There is always going to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances that have an impact on the punishment. There are good reasons for doing bad things. i.e. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your children. But that doesn't mean that because the law was broken for an understandable reason that there shouldn't be punishment. Punishment can be volunteering at a soup kitchen. Laws are necessary in society to keep social order. Look at all the countries in the world with no laws and see how out of control they are. Correlating this to our visa process can be easy. No one will be denied a visa for stealing a loaf of bread since it probably wouldn't have been prosecuted anyway. Any morals, drugs, or immigration laws that were broken in a person's past should have a HUGE impact on their ability to get a visa. A person's past history is an excellent tool to determine their future behavior. I'm just not sure why people who broke immigration and/or visa laws in the past would expect some sort of amnesty or forgiveness from the USCIS. They have already shown that they have no regard for the laws of the country that they are now wanting to call their home. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law

If for example, a person was charged with stealing a loaf of bread, the parameters for punishment of theft vary greatly, depending on the mitigating circumstances.

I'm curious how many people here believe that the punishment should be mandatory, for all cases, regardless of circumstances?

Anyone who breaks the law should suffer some type of punishment. There is always going to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances that have an impact on the punishment. There are good reasons for doing bad things. i.e. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your children. But that doesn't mean that because the law was broken for an understandable reason that there shouldn't be punishment. Punishment can be volunteering at a soup kitchen. Laws are necessary in society to keep social order. Look at all the countries in the world with no laws and see how out of control they are. Correlating this to our visa process can be easy. No one will be denied a visa for stealing a loaf of bread since it probably wouldn't have been prosecuted anyway. Any morals, drugs, or immigration laws that were broken in a person's past should have a HUGE impact on their ability to get a visa. A person's past history is an excellent tool to determine their future behavior. I'm just not sure why people who broke immigration and/or visa laws in the past would expect some sort of amnesty or forgiveness from the USCIS. They have already shown that they have no regard for the laws of the country that they are now wanting to call their home. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[GaryC 7]

Ok, I will bite the bait. I fall on the side of punishment. There should be manditory minimum and maximum punishments for every crime. When you see a judge letting a child molester go free because he thinks that treatment is better than punishment that really tears it for me. In regard to immigration, if you sneak into the country, falsify documents or other like crimes then they should be guilty of a felony and the minimum sentance should be deportation. If it is repeated then there should be jail time and then deportation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ok, I will bite the bait. I fall on the side of punishment. There should be manditory minimum and maximum punishments for every crime. When you see a judge letting a child molester go free because he thinks that treatment is better than punishment that really tears it for me. In regard to immigration, if you sneak into the country, falsify documents or other like crimes then they should be guilty of a felony and the minimum sentance should be deportation. If it is repeated then there should be jail time and then deportation.

Adding foreign nationals to overcrowded jails which you and I would be paying for their upkeep.