Laws and Legality

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

Let us abolish speeding, drunk driving and petty theft laws at once then. All would appear futile by this standard.

If noone enforces it - then the law is essentially pointless no?

The other side of it is that enough people refuse en-masse to - let's say pay a tax that they don't feel is fair, the sheer weight of numbers will force a change in the law.

Speeding and drunk driving laws are enforced and yet there are millions breaking those each and every day. The sheer weight of offenders has thus far not caused a change in either law. Nor should it. Same goes for petty theft, by the way.

Depends on the crime though doesn't it? It's not a hard and fast rule.

Your initial statement sounded pretty general. Want to be more specific?

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

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.

Gary, we need to steer clear of talking about illegal immigration in this thread or we'll end up back to square one.

Ok, so you believe there should be mandatory sentences for every crime. Is driving over the speed limit, in your opinion, a criminal offense?

Yes, I believe in manditory minimum and maximum sentances. Yes, speeding is a crime. A minor one but still a crime. Haven't you ever filled out a form that asks: "Other than minor traffic violations, have you been convicted of a crime?".

Yes, speeding is a crime.

It depends on the circumstances and how much over the speed limit you are going. The purpose of posted limits is for public safety - that's at the heart of law. If you contested a speeding ticket, you could plead your case before a Judge who may choose to lower the fine or do away with it depending on the circumstances. But from what I understand, you want to remove a Judge's legal discretion when it comes to applying the law, yes?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

My rule would be: If the government fails to create a reasonable belief in people that breaking a law may result in punishment, the law should be repealed.

[Heracles 417]

We can as a society/government at least provide basic needs to deter people from taking to crime as a way out. It wont stop all crime, but it will hopefully prevent some people from ending up in the criminal system. Europe and other places around the world, have done a much better job of taking care of their people, than the US has.

But I think there is also a cultural aspect to this. And I don't know exactly where is from.

I realized that a while back. I do not think balanced capitalism is bad but a dog eats dog society just does not work. It never has in over 5,000 years and has always led to the failure of a society and country.

The other obstacle here is the cultural endorsement of being a gangster and mobster. So many kids aspire to be cool and are gangster wannabes. They endorse violence and are now told not to speak up against crime otherwise you will be classified a "snitch". The lack of accepting the 'broken window effect' is also adding fuel to the fire.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The other obstacle here is the cultural endorsement of being a gangster and mobster. So many kids aspire to be cool and are gangster wannabes.

None of the kids I know. Maybe you need to stop spending all your time in the ghetto.

[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.

Gary, we need to steer clear of talking about illegal immigration in this thread or we'll end up back to square one.

Ok, so you believe there should be mandatory sentences for every crime. Is driving over the speed limit, in your opinion, a criminal offense?

Yes, I believe in manditory minimum and maximum sentances. Yes, speeding is a crime. A minor one but still a crime. Haven't you ever filled out a form that asks: "Other than minor traffic violations, have you been convicted of a crime?".

Yes, speeding is a crime.

It depends on the circumstances and how much over the speed limit you are going. The purpose of posted limits is for public safety - that's at the heart of law. If you contested a speeding ticket, you could plead your case before a Judge who may choose to lower the fine or do away with it depending on the circumstances. But from what I understand, you want to remove a Judge's legal discretion when it comes to applying the law, yes?

I SAID YES!!! There should be minimum and maximum penalties! The judge always has the right to drop charges if he thinks you were not guilty!!! I believe in the law. The law is why we have order. When you allow laws to be ignored because you don't like them or think they are wrong then you have anarchy.

Just in case you missed it. YES I THINK THERE SHOULD BE MANDITORY MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUM PENALTIES!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

Let us abolish speeding, drunk driving and petty theft laws at once then. All would appear futile by this standard.

If noone enforces it - then the law is essentially pointless no?

The other side of it is that enough people refuse en-masse to - let's say pay a tax that they don't feel is fair, the sheer weight of numbers will force a change in the law.

Speeding and drunk driving laws are enforced and yet there are millions breaking those each and every day. The sheer weight of offenders has thus far not caused a change in either law. Nor should it. Same goes for petty theft, by the way.

Not that simple. If the posted speed limit is 25 MPH and everybody drives 45 MPH, the posted speed limit could be raised. With drunk driving - each state has its own legal limit so there is argument over when being inebriated effects one's driving to the point of endangering others. If the blood alcohol limit is so low that a very high percentage of people are getting DUI's, then it's worth looking into whether the legal limit should be raised - taking into account scientific evidence as well as statistics.

We can talk theory all day. The bottom line is this, though: speed limits are broken no matter what they are. Going with your example, if said limit was raised from 25 to 45 because people were going 45 when the limit was 25, then following the adjustment, people are likely to go 55 or 65 in the now 45 zone. You can say it isn't so but you and I both know better. Same goes for the DUI threshold. And what about them petty thieves? Set a limit there, too. Let them go if it's less than $20.00 worth. And s that per instance, per day, per week or what? You may not like the thought but there have got to be some absolutes unless you'd like to descent into anarchy.

[Dan J 277]

We can as a society/government at least provide basic needs to deter people from taking to crime as a way out. It wont stop all crime, but it will hopefully prevent some people from ending up in the criminal system. Europe and other places around the world, have done a much better job of taking care of their people, than the US has.

But I think there is also a cultural aspect to this. And I don't know exactly where is from.

I realized that a while back. I do not think balanced capitalism is bad but a dog eats dog society just does not work. It never has in over 5,000 years and has always led to the failure of a society and country.

The other obstacle here is the cultural endorsement of being a gangster and mobster. So many kids aspire to be cool and are gangster wannabes. They endorse violence and are now told not to speak up against crime otherwise you will be classified a "snitch". The lack of accepting the 'broken window effect' is also adding fuel to the fire.

How much does poverty or people being in poverty affect the gangster ideal? Because its been so commercialized, it probably does something to instill the idea that gangs and crime are a way out, to riches. When what really happens is they just end up in jail.

[Heracles 417]

It depends on the circumstances and how much over the speed limit you are going. The purpose of posted limits is for public safety - that's at the heart of law. If you contested a speeding ticket, you could plead your case before a Judge who may choose to lower the fine or do away with it depending on the circumstances. But from what I understand, you want to remove a Judge's legal discretion when it comes to applying the law, yes?

Try contesting a fine in most other nations. It is not going to happen period. Point being there are too many ways to contest law enforcement here.

The criminals and law breakers have about 101 laws protecting them and their 'rights', in one way or another, while the police have to jump through numerous hoops to get anything done.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

Let us abolish speeding, drunk driving and petty theft laws at once then. All would appear futile by this standard.

If noone enforces it - then the law is essentially pointless no?

The other side of it is that enough people refuse en-masse to - let's say pay a tax that they don't feel is fair, the sheer weight of numbers will force a change in the law.

Speeding and drunk driving laws are enforced and yet there are millions breaking those each and every day. The sheer weight of offenders has thus far not caused a change in either law. Nor should it. Same goes for petty theft, by the way.

Not that simple. If the posted speed limit is 25 MPH and everybody drives 45 MPH, the posted speed limit could be raised. With drunk driving - each state has its own legal limit so there is argument over when being inebriated effects one's driving to the point of endangering others. If the blood alcohol limit is so low that a very high percentage of people are getting DUI's, then it's worth looking into whether the legal limit should be raised - taking into account scientific evidence as well as statistics.

We can talk theory all day. The bottom line is this, though: speed limits are broken no matter what they are. Going with your example, if said limit was raised from 25 to 45 because people were going 45 when the limit was 25, then following the adjustment, people are likely to go 55 or 65 in the now 45 zone. You can say it isn't so but you and I both know better. Same goes for the DUI threshold. And what about them petty thieves? Set a limit there, too. Let them go if it's less than $20.00 worth. And s that per instance, per day, per week or what? You may not like the thought but there have got to be some absolutes unless you'd like to descent into anarchy.

That's not strictly true - speed limits may be raised or lowered but not solely because people aren't obeying it - at the least the limit might be reviewed - if for example the slower (or indeed) faster speed are causing more accidents in certain locations.

As far as freeways go - most people generally go with the speed of traffic, rather than strictly obeying posted limits. Indeed - if you drive the 65mph speed limit while everyone is doing 75-80 you're potentially jeopardizing your own safety.

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

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.

Gary, we need to steer clear of talking about illegal immigration in this thread or we'll end up back to square one.

Ok, so you believe there should be mandatory sentences for every crime. Is driving over the speed limit, in your opinion, a criminal offense?

Yes, I believe in manditory minimum and maximum sentances. Yes, speeding is a crime. A minor one but still a crime. Haven't you ever filled out a form that asks: "Other than minor traffic violations, have you been convicted of a crime?".

Yes, speeding is a crime.

It depends on the circumstances and how much over the speed limit you are going. The purpose of posted limits is for public safety - that's at the heart of law. If you contested a speeding ticket, you could plead your case before a Judge who may choose to lower the fine or do away with it depending on the circumstances. But from what I understand, you want to remove a Judge's legal discretion when it comes to applying the law, yes?

I SAID YES!!! There should be minimum and maximum penalties! The judge always has the right to drop charges if he thinks you were not guilty!!! I believe in the law. The law is why we have order. When you allow laws to be ignored because you don't like them or think they are wrong then you have anarchy.

Just in case you missed it. YES I THINK THERE SHOULD BE MANDITORY MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUM PENALTIES!!

You see no gray areas within civil law? Particularly in laws that have changed over time? If a judge thinks a person is guilty, you want to remove his/her legal expertise in deciding what is the most appropriate legal action to take?

Edited June 28, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[GaryC 7]

You see no gray areas within civil law? Particularly in laws that have changed over time? If a judge thinks a person is guilty, you want to remove his/her legal expertise in deciding what is the most appropriate legal action to take?

Boy, I must be posting in Greek or something. Read my keyboard. I..... believe......in......manditory.....minimum....and....maximum.....penalties.

Clear enough? I have seen to many examples of out of controll judges letting criminals off because there were no minimum sentances. I believe that if you do the crime you should pay the penalty.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

Let us abolish speeding, drunk driving and petty theft laws at once then. All would appear futile by this standard.

If noone enforces it - then the law is essentially pointless no?

The other side of it is that enough people refuse en-masse to - let's say pay a tax that they don't feel is fair, the sheer weight of numbers will force a change in the law.

Speeding and drunk driving laws are enforced and yet there are millions breaking those each and every day. The sheer weight of offenders has thus far not caused a change in either law. Nor should it. Same goes for petty theft, by the way.

Not that simple. If the posted speed limit is 25 MPH and everybody drives 45 MPH, the posted speed limit could be raised. With drunk driving - each state has its own legal limit so there is argument over when being inebriated effects one's driving to the point of endangering others. If the blood alcohol limit is so low that a very high percentage of people are getting DUI's, then it's worth looking into whether the legal limit should be raised - taking into account scientific evidence as well as statistics.

We can talk theory all day. The bottom line is this, though: speed limits are broken no matter what they are. Going with your example, if said limit was raised from 25 to 45 because people were going 45 when the limit was 25, then following the adjustment, people are likely to go 55 or 65 in the now 45 zone. You can say it isn't so but you and I both know better. Same goes for the DUI threshold. And what about them petty thieves? Set a limit there, too. Let them go if it's less than $20.00 worth. And s that per instance, per day, per week or what? You may not like the thought but there have got to be some absolutes unless you'd like to descent into anarchy.

That's not strictly true - speed limits may be raised or lowered but not solely because people aren't obeying it - at the least the limit might be reviewed - if for example the slower (or indeed) faster speed are causing more accidents in certain locations.

As far as freeways go - most people generally go with the speed of traffic, rather than strictly obeying posted limits. Indeed - if you drive the 65mph speed limit while everyone is doing 75-80 you're potentially jeopardizing your own safety.

Point out to me one area where drivers generally obey the speed limit. It doesn't exist. You know it as well as I do.

[Heracles 417]

How much does poverty or people being in poverty affect the gangster ideal? Because its been so commercialized, it probably does something to instill the idea that gangs and crime are a way out, to riches. When what really happens is they just end up in jail.

Though, there are plenty of poor people in other countries who do not resort to violence. People who do not have 1/1000 of what every American has access too. People forget about the depression and seem to assume that the white man was always rich. Many here seem to find the your racist excuse convenient rather than accepting the fact that someone from Mexico can come here with nothing and make something of themselves. That is, even when they have the odds stacked against them.

To be honest I am sick of certain people using poverty as an excuse to resort to violence and gang bang. That is while they roll in a lexus. I was in DC today only to notice Mexicans working hard in this heat while so many others who blame America and the government and the white man of course kick back and bum around.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

Let us abolish speeding, drunk driving and petty theft laws at once then. All would appear futile by this standard.

If noone enforces it - then the law is essentially pointless no?

The other side of it is that enough people refuse en-masse to - let's say pay a tax that they don't feel is fair, the sheer weight of numbers will force a change in the law.

Speeding and drunk driving laws are enforced and yet there are millions breaking those each and every day. The sheer weight of offenders has thus far not caused a change in either law. Nor should it. Same goes for petty theft, by the way.

Not that simple. If the posted speed limit is 25 MPH and everybody drives 45 MPH, the posted speed limit could be raised. With drunk driving - each state has its own legal limit so there is argument over when being inebriated effects one's driving to the point of endangering others. If the blood alcohol limit is so low that a very high percentage of people are getting DUI's, then it's worth looking into whether the legal limit should be raised - taking into account scientific evidence as well as statistics.

We can talk theory all day. The bottom line is this, though: speed limits are broken no matter what they are. Going with your example, if said limit was raised from 25 to 45 because people were going 45 when the limit was 25, then following the adjustment, people are likely to go 55 or 65 in the now 45 zone. You can say it isn't so but you and I both know better. Same goes for the DUI threshold. And what about them petty thieves? Set a limit there, too. Let them go if it's less than $20.00 worth. And s that per instance, per day, per week or what? You may not like the thought but there have got to be some absolutes unless you'd like to descent into anarchy.

That's not strictly true - speed limits may be raised or lowered but not solely because people aren't obeying it - at the least the limit might be reviewed - if for example the slower (or indeed) faster speed are causing more accidents in certain locations.

As far as freeways go - most people generally go with the speed of traffic, rather than strictly obeying posted limits. Indeed - if you drive the 65mph speed limit while everyone is doing 75-80 you're potentially jeopardizing your own safety.

Point out to me one area where drivers generally obey the speed limit. It doesn't exist. You know it as well as I do.

Depends on how well its enforced. Speed cameras in the UK (for all the controversy over the implementation) have made a noticeable difference.