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.
This is something I've been mulling for some time now. We are a nation of laws. Yet it seems that as such, we find our only recourse is through the legal system, which is based upon law.
So if there were no law against murder, under what authority can government prosecute for murder?
Same goes for robbery, rape, and jaywalking.
Granted, all of these things are immoral. But morality does not equal legality or illegality.
Loss of revenue for the remainder of that individuals life, that would be one way. Pain and suffering, for rape.
Both assume appropriate laws covering those specific circumstances. Besides which, those are civil matters not criminal matters.
I believe that after the mortgage meltdown, congress passed a law making it illegal to lend money to someone who could not afford to repay the loan. Which is probably why we cant go after those who did so.
This is something I've been mulling for some time now. We are a nation of laws. Yet it seems that as such, we find our only recourse is through the legal system, which is based upon law.
So if there were no law against murder, under what authority can government prosecute for murder?
Same goes for robbery, rape, and jaywalking.
Granted, all of these things are immoral. But morality does not equal legality or illegality.
Anyone?
I don't follow. Are you suggesting that the government be allowed to prosecute people for legal acts? Why? The legal system should be used to resolve legal matters.
People can be prosecuted for violations against the Constitution. Specifically, a person could be prosecuted to taking away one's right to pursue liberty and happiness.
There are many laws that in and of themselves are grounds for prosecution. If the murder itself wasn't against the law, the laws applying to use the use of the weapon could be used.
It would be a simple matter, impose the same penalties for other law violations as for murder. It becomes an argument of semantics, theory and intent but in the end, if the penalty is the same, the who, what, when, where and why don't really matter too much.
People can be prosecuted for violations against the Constitution. Specifically, a person could be prosecuted to taking away one's right to pursue liberty and happiness.
There are many laws that in and of themselves are grounds for prosecution. If the murder itself wasn't against the law, the laws applying to use the use of the weapon could be used.
It would be a simple matter, impose the same penalties for other law violations as for murder. It becomes an argument of semantics, theory and intent but in the end, if the penalty is the same, the who, what, when, where and why don't really matter too much.
Both assume appropriate laws covering those specific circumstances. Besides which, those are civil matters not criminal matters.
I believe that after the mortgage meltdown, congress passed a law making it illegal to lend money to someone who could not afford to repay the loan. Which is probably why we cant go after those who did so.
There was no law associated with a wrongful death claim. Ask OJ. Its a civil matter
If there was no law against it, it couldn't be prosecuted. In some circumstances another law may be broken that one could be prosecuted for, such as kidnapping, assault, etc., but one can't be prosecuted for a legal act.
This is something I've been mulling for some time now. We are a nation of laws. Yet it seems that as such, we find our only recourse is through the legal system, which is based upon law.
So if there were no law against murder, under what authority can government prosecute for murder?
Same goes for robbery, rape, and jaywalking.
Granted, all of these things are immoral. But morality does not equal legality or illegality.
Anyone?
I believe in the concept of natural rights. In it is in our nature to protect our lives and that is why even in a very primitive group today or thousands of years ago the protection of life was important. Some of those groups may not have a 'written' law against murder but I believe anyone that harm the safety of security of group members were dealt with.
Heck, I believe penguins do have some type of social expectations and do punish those that violate them. Do they have written laws to punish wrongdoing?
Why is jaywalking immoral? I do not think the act per say immoral. It may be a safety concern and society may think it is necessary to have such law.
As far as morality equating legality or illegality, that is an interesting comment. Many laws are based on moral views. Others may be based on utility. Others may be based on needs whereas others may be based on other issues like economic promotion.
In some of those cases people may label jaywalking as immoral because people disobeyed a law. When is disobeying a law immoral? Is a subjugated and abused group wrong by breaking a law that oppresses? Is civil disobedience immoral?
I suppose that you can somehow attach morality to anything because any subjective topic is based on personal views; they are not objective like trying to argue whether 2+2=4. Take care.
If there is no law against is, why would it be prosecuted?
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.
