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.
I was doing a little bit of reading about philosophies of governance the other day. One philosophy struck me as different, but I liked some of the ideals. The tribal system of governance of the people of Somalia, called "xeer" was an interesting concept. In this system, all crimes are considered property crimes. It seems that the only ones who can press charges are those individuals who have suffered harm at the actions of another.
That got me to thinking about our legal system here, and how, if there is no victim to press charges in certain matter, the state takes up a case against you in a courtroom that it controls.
Imagine if the state were not allowed to file charges. What would be the state of the country then. Imagine if for every charge filed, the accuser had to prove he suffered harm because of it.
How are we, the people, more free for allowing the state to press charges against us and draw us into legal battles.
My own opinion is that no society, town, county, state, or national government should ever be a plaintiff in a courtroom, only the individuals who can show direct harm. Or in the case of murder, the family of the individual.
So it should be ok to drive down the street at 120mph, as long as nobody gets hurt? Sounds like anarchy to me, which is pretty close to what they have in Somalia... No thanks.
So it should be ok to drive down the street at 120mph, as long as nobody gets hurt? Sounds like anarchy to me, which is pretty close to what they have in Somalia... No thanks.
A miss is as good as a mile. Tell me why is there a need to punish people for a "crime" that caused no harm to anyone? This is the great debates forum, so explain your position.
It is not anarchy, as it is always illegal to harm others, and there are ways for those harmed to seek retribution if they are harmed because you did not exercise common sense.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,314 posts, read 8,655,857 times
Reputation: 6391
What about murdering someone who was an orphan? Murder in any society is a crime, But who would be the plaintiff in a case such as this. Or lets take Somalia as an example, The local war chief is all powerful and will murder, rape or steal at will, no one would testify against them . There are instances where the goverment or someone must take charge...
I would like to see the process speeded up, kinda like the old west...... murder today, trial tommorow, Hanged the day after tommorow
I was doing a little bit of reading about philosophies of governance the other day. One philosophy struck me as different, but I liked some of the ideals. The tribal system of governance of the people of Somalia, called "xeer" was an interesting concept. In this system, all crimes are considered property crimes. It seems that the only ones who can press charges are those individuals who have suffered harm at the actions of another.
That got me to thinking about our legal system here, and how, if there is no victim to press charges in certain matter, the state takes up a case against you in a courtroom that it controls.
Imagine if the state were not allowed to file charges. What would be the state of the country then. Imagine if for every charge filed, the accuser had to prove he suffered harm because of it.
How are we, the people, more free for allowing the state to press charges against us and draw us into legal battles.
My own opinion is that no society, town, county, state, or national government should ever be a plaintiff in a courtroom, only the individuals who can show direct harm. Or in the case of murder, the family of the individual.
Ah, yes... if only we were more like Somalia...
So, if only those harmed can press charges, then the crime of attempted murder no longer exists. Conspiracy to commit murder? Not a crime! DWI? It's legal unless/until you hurt someone! Someone burns down a forest on public land? It's government land, no individual is harmed, no crime! Air pollution? Have at it, because it's almost impossible to tie a respiratory injury to a specific emission/emitter!
Yeah... that sounds fantastic all right... gee, I wonder why that legal system hasn't spread 'round the world like wildfire...
What about murdering someone who was an orphan? Murder in any society is a crime, But who would be the plaintiff in a case such as this. Or lets take Somalia as an example, The local war chief is all powerful and will murder, rape or steal at will, no one would testify against them . There are instances where the goverment or someone must take charge...
I would like to see the process speeded up, kinda like the old west...... murder today, trial tommorow, Hanged the day after tommorow
You make some good points that I hadn't considered. But how is one to get a fair trial when the plaintiff also owns the courthouse?
All those things you list, however, have a definite victim. Someone who was harmed by the aggressive acts of another.
There are a number of "crimes" in this nation which really don't harm anyone. Drug use is a prime example. I'm against the use of certain drugs, so I don't use them, but why should it be criminal for someone else to use them? It neither breaks my bones nor picks my pockets, to plagiarize an old phrase.
If someone is driving down the freeway like a bat out of hell, but manages to make it home unscathed and having done no harm to anyone else, who is the injured party? There is none in that case, so how can compensation rightfully be demanded?
What if an elderly lady conceals a handgun in her purse without the state's blessing in the form of a permit to conceal. She's now a criminal. But if the gun is never drawn and used on another, what's the crime?
I guess my big beef is that the power of the leviathan state and federal government we have should not be used to regulate the behaviors of individuals. That people should be free to do whatever they damn well please, and that punishment should only come to those who inflict harm or attempt to inflict harm on others.
I suppose the solution is not to bar the state from using the courts, because I can see that the state would be needed to speak for those who have no one to speak for them, such as a murdered orphan.
What of a law that prohibits any sort of fine, sentence, or other punishment on anyone who has not harmed or attempted to harm another?
Government legislates a code of laws on behalf of the people it represents. Anyone who breaks the law is breaking the law of the people. There may not be any physical harm involved to an individual but there is harm done nevertheless. It is harm done to the people of the state. The state acts as advocate for the people against the accused and it must abide by all of the laws that protect the accused from prosecutorial abuse. The advocate for the accused is there to insure that.
If you don't agree with certain acts being harmful to the people then you have to go through the legislative process to get the law changed. As long as drug use is unlawful, anyone caught using has done harm to the people.
Government legislates a code of laws on behalf of the people it represents. Anyone who breaks the law is breaking the law of the people. There may not be any physical harm involved to an individual but there is harm done nevertheless. It is harm done to the people of the state. The state acts as advocate for the people against the accused and it must abide by all of the laws that protect the accused from prosecutorial abuse. The advocate for the accused is there to insure that.
If you don't agree with certain acts being harmful to the people then you have to go through the legislative process to get the law changed. As long as drug use is unlawful, anyone caught using has done harm to the people.
Feel free to comment or correct.
To which people? What specific people have been harmed? Why should the people as a collective have a right to make rules governing an individual's behavior that harms nobody?
To which people? What specific people have been harmed? Why should the people as a collective have a right to make rules governing an individual's behavior that harms nobody?
The harm is to theeeee people (in abstract).
The people have every right to make a set of laws in which the individual must follow. If you choose to live in that society then you follow their laws. If you wish to abolish a law that you think does no harm, then you must convince others who think differently. Otherwise, the other alternatives are to leave that society or to do harm to society (i.e, break its law).
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.
