Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We live in a society that constricts individual behavior that can bring harm to either the society or an individual member of that society. Local Zoning Boards are an example of the society, through the government, preventing individuals from using their own land in a manner that can cause property values of adjacent land to drop in value. To build a pig farm or chemical refinery in the middle of suburbia would decrease the surrounding property values in the society and is prohibited by the laws created by the society for the protection of the group.
Traffic laws are an example of restrictions created to minimize the risk to other individuals created by the reckless action of an individual. Running stop signs can be perfectly harmless most of the time but society has decreed stopping mandatory because of the possibility of an accident, with potentially fatal results, created by the miscreant running the stop sign. Reckless speeding is controlled for the same reason and in a similar manner.
Leaving the damages done in these instances, to be paid by the perpetrator after the act, is too expensive in terms of damage to the society’s members. Society has determined that attempting prevent harm is better than picking up the pieces. In the cases of fatal results of breaking the law society has determined that paying the man prices is an inadequate way of compensating the victims.
This is why the state can file charges against an individual for reckless behavior even though no actual damage has been done. Most of us find this to be an acceptable restraint on our behavior so long as it is a restraint on everyone’s behavior.
We live in a society that constricts individual behavior that can bring harm to either the society or an individual member of that society. Local Zoning Boards are an example of the society, through the government, preventing individuals from using their own land in a manner that can cause property values of adjacent land to drop in value. To build a pig farm or chemical refinery in the middle of suburbia would decrease the surrounding property values in the society and is prohibited by the laws created by the society for the protection of the group.
Traffic laws are an example of restrictions created to minimize the risk to other individuals created by the reckless action of an individual. Running stop signs can be perfectly harmless most of the time but society has decreed stopping mandatory because of the possibility of an accident, with potentially fatal results, created by the miscreant running the stop sign. Reckless speeding is controlled for the same reason and in a similar manner.
Leaving the damages done in these instances, to be paid by the perpetrator after the act, is too expensive in terms of damage to the society’s members. Society has determined that attempting prevent harm is better than picking up the pieces. In the cases of fatal results of breaking the law society has determined that paying the man prices is an inadequate way of compensating the victims.
This is why the state can file charges against an individual for reckless behavior even though no actual damage has been done. Most of us find this to be an acceptable restraint on our behavior so long as it is a restraint on everyone’s behavior.
You make the best case of anyone so far. But what of behavior that poses no risk to others? The case of smoking a joint in your own house, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet, driving around without a seat belt.
I think the one paragraph I do take the most issue is the idea of zoning to safeguard some idea of property value, itself not something that is not determined according to any real scientific method. The old maxim is "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it," so a high property valuation does not necessarily equate to a high worth. Might be that a buyer might love the idea of living near a farm, or perhaps someone seeking employment in a chemical plant would want to live next door so as to forgo transportation expenses.
Property values matter only to those who are selling their property. In the years I've lived where I do, the value of the property has gone up and down, but it hasn't made a lick of difference to me. I'm no better off for it going up, and no worse off for it going down.
Why would you thnik that individauls can file charges aginst a person. They have neither the knowledge or timje ot do so. Its society that makes the rules of civilization not the indivdual. It liie tr reason they have traffic laws because those are mean to prevent harm formj reckless drivers and controol who drive in the end. As to the helmet laws ;society does suffer harm and cost when a person receives a head injury since the public institutions treat the person and often a hed injury means a dependent of society for his lifetime.Laws are created by civilized society for the benefit of society as a whole.
You make the best case of anyone so far. But what of behavior that poses no risk to others? The case of smoking a joint in your own house, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet, driving around without a seat belt.
I think the one paragraph I do take the most issue is the idea of zoning to safeguard some idea of property value, itself not something that is not determined according to any real scientific method. The old maxim is "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it," so a high property valuation does not necessarily equate to a high worth. Might be that a buyer might love the idea of living near a farm, or perhaps someone seeking employment in a chemical plant would want to live next door so as to forgo transportation expenses.
Property values matter only to those who are selling their property. In the years I've lived where I do, the value of the property has gone up and down, but it hasn't made a lick of difference to me. I'm no better off for it going up, and no worse off for it going down.
In the case of laws like smoking a joint or riding a motorcycle without a helmet or driving without a seat belt, if you really don't want those laws, you need to vote for people who will change them (I don't think you have a chance with the seatbelt laws, but you might with the others).
One of the founding principles of the US is that it is to be a nation of laws, not men. The flaws of the European history of power emanating from royalty and then passing down to the nobility and, via personal preferment, to court courtiers was all too real to the founders. The aim of law is not to punish sins, but to prevent certain external results.
It may be that we have way too many laws, but do you really want a nation where there are no laws and none to speak for the powerless?
Let's not let the govt file charges. That way when there is a serial murderer or rapist who can intimidate the witnesses they can run free. Let guys drive 120 mpg through your neighborhood - I'm sure you will feel your children are safe when they are not hit and you will continue to let them ride their bikes on their block.
In many cases I agree, but the state or feds need the power to bring some cases to court.
In most crimes against persons I'v always felt it wrong that the state is the plaintiff.
If someone steals from me they did not commit a cfrime against the state, same with rape & most other crimes against persons. Murder is slightly different in that the offender stole a taxpayer from the state or feds. In the end thats all we really are to the government anyway, money makers.
The citizen has the power to bring civil chargtes already for harm done to them. The peopole decide what they want a prohabvition aginst in so called victimless crimes.Pot is much like the laws o polution IMO. Its pollutes society often making the person a dependent whether he works or not just lie alcohol.Its actaully causes many wreiks with injury just lke it does and wrecks lifes and families.
Civil charges cant bring back a loved one or undue whats been done. Most times the criminal has nothing anyway so you get nothing.
The victim or someone truly acting in the victims interest should be the one deciding the fate if the person is convicted. Not some prosecutor & judge who have no interest & will let them plea something down so it clears the books faster. Let them convict & let the victims deal with sentencing maybe. This way they wont feel left out.
Just to be clear I see nothing wrong with public hangings. Especially today with DNA & all that.
I just wanted to add that I'm only talking about real crimes. Traffic laws & other reasonable regulatory laws are another matter and it is certainly the govts duty to enforce them. We make those laws because we want them. The only entity really legally offended by breaking those laws is the govt so obviously its their business.
When someone gets beat on the head & robbed on the other hand its only that individual who was hurt. It just seems very wrong for them not to be in control.
So let me get this straight. In this new universe, if someone is killed and has no family, no charges are filed since there is no one who has standing to file charges and the govt. won't. Now this killer chooses another with no family, serial killers do their research, the same happens. What a lovely place to live if someone has no family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Especially today with DNA & all that.
