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.
All drug related crimes need to go. Those aren't crimes that warrant prison. Addicts don't need punishment, they need help.
Prisons, as a general rule, should not house people who committed victimless crimes. Theft, rape, murder are the trifecta. And thieves shouldn't serve long sentences, unless its like corporate level embezzlement, and even that shouldn't get anything more than 5 years. Unless political corruption enters in; but that should be based on circumstance.
Also, mandatory minimum sentencing laws should be removed. Circumstance should always be taken into consideration when dealing with all crimes.
Prison also needs to work towards rehabilitation.
The sex offender registry could also use some adjustments. Rapists and such; but non-violent sex offenders (that's an actual classification, they're generally put on the registry for 10-15 years) shouldn't. be on a registry. So, people who have consensual sex with a minor (like, 16 or 17) while they are 18 or 19, maybe 20, shouldn't be placed on a registry. I also tend to think residency restrictions are counter productive. I know the idea of sex offenders living nears schools concerns people, but hardly any sex offenders sit in vans by parks or schools to kidnap a child. The restrictions run the risk of alienating a person form a community, which makes them more likely to reoffend, which is the opposite of what anyone wants.
Also, anyone who's ever been arrested for something like feeding the homeless should be release, their criminal record wiped completely clean, and given $1000 for getting detained without valid reason. That's some BS.
The obvious examples I can think of are the sale and purchase of sexual services, the purchase of drugs, and the right to fight if both parties agree to it. For the latter, I'd imagine there would need to be a clause that forbids death or excessive bodily harm. Once you have some ind of limit in place where prosecution begins it should be fine. This isn't the wild-west where duels to the death should be legal, but two people should legally be allowed to fight. Anyway, these are just some basic ones that are often debated. I am sure there are other laws people think could eliminated without harming society, and I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts.
Which laws do you think need not exist and why? Or do you think the system is infallible when it comes to laws already in place?
I think gun laws should be relaxed. I don't carry but I'd like to because there are way too many criminals running around that commit crimes because jail is nothing to them. If law abiding citizens could open carry then that would deter alot of crime and help the good people feel safe.
Ought to be a law that limits government salaries and pensions. Also, a limit on campaign contributions, so that elections can't be rigged anymore than they already are.
Eliminate selective service registration.
Eliminate laws that prevent parents from correcting their kids.
I think gun laws should be relaxed. I don't carry but I'd like to because there are way too many criminals running around that commit crimes because jail is nothing to them. If law abiding citizens could open carry then that would deter alot of crime and help the good people feel safe.
Agree, though I think that if that's a 'solution' to the issue of crime, it's not a good one. Gun rights should exist regardless as a precaution, but we need to address the problem with crime and recidivism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay100
Eliminate laws that prevent parents from correcting their kids.
Ive got serious beef with laws that were CLEARLY written to benefit some businesses while suppressing others. For instance big beer vs craft beer laws. Also I have an issue with moral sexuality, as mentioned before. If I want to sleep with a woman and give her a tip in return, thats not a cops business. If I want to lay nude on a beach, I should be allowed to.
I think thry need to get rid of petty trump charge laws, such as resisting arrest, no one wants to be arrested, and it makes no sense, it only exist to add time to a crime. The same could be said for recieving stolen property, in that case, if one doesn't know it was stolen, they shouldn't go to jail for it, I've seen this too many times, such as a friend steals a car, tells the person it was borrowed or bought, and they use it, and get arrested pretty much for being ignorant.
As far as sex offenders, in some states public urination can get you a SO charge, the way I see it is; if you aren't sexually offending a child, or running around nude, or playing with yourself, you're hiding behind the dumpster taking a whizz, no one is offended, you can't be seen, or even facing a wall, or in a corner somewhere.
I don't care who sez what, some things just aren't child abuse, not all kids are the same, or even remotely obedient. I do agree with another poster, people should be able to duke it out, sometimes it's just the only way. Getting an aggrovated assault charge for punching someone i the throat, because they won't stay out of your face, poking you in the chest is just bull.
Gun laws need to be lessened, or through their strictness, melee weapons need to be perfectly legal to carry and use, as far as I'm concerned, sometimes the police just aren't going to get there, if you can manage to call. Criminals don't seem to think about(or care) who may be carrying a weapon, and/or is highly skilled with it, or hand to hand. Some thug might wanna rob some guy, and not worry about he's as skilled as Jackie Chan with a chair, or ladder. So; when someone is carrying, clearly, say a bowstaff, or a pair of butterfly swords, he might consider his future health as he reaches for his fleah market Morphius replica katanna. Speaking of cops, I believe with widespread use of body cams, people should be able to defend themselves- physically, if need be, and should be able to freely record them without notification, a public official shouldn't even need to know- technically, or theoretically being public property.
I also think as far as taxes, you should only pay what applies to you; live in an apartment, you have no property, so no property taxes, and so fourth, make more money, pay more taxes, if the rich wouldn't live at, or beyond their means, they would have fewer monetary problems. Which goes to; there needs to be a cieling cap on the cost of living, at least for basic needs, a 200sq foot apartment in new york doesn't need to cost more than a studio here Louisville ky. Price of milk doesn't need to be over four bucks, we have many food cow farms, steak should not cost what it does. Food,,
Shelter, hospital visits do not need to be expensive at all. They need to average the most affordable places to live eithrr by city, or state, and that is the nation wide cost. Give people a chance to make a living wage, one place may be 7.50min wage, and another may be 13.50, yet you would be in the same position, or worse, because with 13.50, everything else cost more. Might as well go back home, work for 7.50, and "live" in a 800sqaure foot studio, and leave that 300square foot effeciency and 1000mo rent alone.
There should also be something against your electric company raising bills during the winter time.
The only laws worth keeping are those that protect one person from the aggression of another. All victimless-crime statutes should be removed from the books.
Governments tend to justify things like drug laws by saying they have a compelling interest in preventing the harm those drugs can cause -- but that leads to a slippery slope in which any behavior can be regulated or banned because the behavior MAY be injurious to society. Some people abuse recreational drugs and cause harm to others, but others use them without causing harm to anyone but oneself. Someone who doesn't wear a seat belt might sustain serious injuries in an accident, but studies have shown that not wearing protective gear like seat belts and helmets actually makes people drive more safely, because they're aware of the potential for injury if they operate a vehicle recklessly -- and even if they are injured, if they have insurance to cover their injuries, then no one else needs to worry about the costs to society. Obesity is unhealthy and causes medical problems, but do we want the government telling us what we can and can't eat? I don't.
Essentially, the lines between the public and private sectors need to be clearly, and extremely strictly, defined -- the public sector (and the taxpayers who have to fund it) divorced clearly and completely from any activity which can be provided by the private. That means that only common defense (including police, fire and natural-disaster protection) and an impartial, but well-trained and strict-constructionist legal system -- a parallel, of sorts, to Swiss banking -- would be the responsibility of the public sector.
Everything else, and I'm most concerned with education and social insurance, should be 100% privately funded and operated (but with such measures as a voucher system to guarantee that every child has an opportunity for an education, and a bare-bones welfare network, locally run in order to identify and exclude the growing contingent who seem determined to make indolence into a career). Mandatory participation is not necessary when, as is clearly the case. most of us see the need for insurance, and those who don't are clearly given the message that life isn't very sweet, or very safe, without it.
A society founded on those principles would stop Big Brother and Big Sister dead in their tracks -- and good riddance.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-01-2015 at 10:49 AM..
The only laws worth keeping are those that protect one person from the aggression of another. All victimless-crime statutes should be removed from the books.
Governments tend to justify things like drug laws by saying they have a compelling interest in preventing the harm those drugs can cause -- but that leads to a slippery slope in which any behavior can be regulated or banned because the behavior MAY be injurious to society. Some people abuse recreational drugs and cause harm to others, but others use them without causing harm to anyone but oneself. Someone who doesn't wear a seat belt might sustain serious injuries in an accident, but studies have shown that not wearing protective gear like seat belts and helmets actually makes people drive more safely, because they're aware of the potential for injury if they operate a vehicle recklessly -- and even if they are injured, if they have insurance to cover their injuries, then no one else needs to worry about the costs to society. Obesity is unhealthy and causes medical problems, but do we want the government telling us what we can and can't eat? I don't.
Thats what I forgot to add; nanny laws, seatbeltd and helmets should be a choice. Regardless of how one feels about it, because there are lynch style arguments about it, and those who don't want to wear them. Doesn't matter how anyone feels about it, an adult should have a choice. Same with car insurance, I think that should be optional for owning a car, unless its leased.
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.
