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.
It seems to me that every time there is an incidence that gets public attention - no matter how few people are really effected, someone proposes a new law be created to deal with it.
Jut about every BS law that we have comes down to this.
Some laws are good. Murderers, rapists, thieves; all deserve to be brought to justice in a fair and humane way. Many laws, like drug laws, aren't necessarily 'bad,' but laughably ineffective. Don't get me wrong, using heroin is bad and we don't want to encourage or justify it's use, but sending them to prison for basically doing harm to themselves? Not reasonable and way beyond the scope of the law. Those people need help, not punishment.
There are plenty of other crimes that are felonies that need not be felonies. In my humble opinion, unless someone is hurt in some way, be it physical (this includes sexual things, like rape or molestation) or their property is damaged or stolen, it shouldn't be a felony. I'm sure there's at least one exception to the rule, but that's a different discussion. As a rule though, if only murder, aggravated assault, rape, molestation, arson (or other intentional destruction of property), and theft (armed robbery, mugging, or breaking and entering) were crimes that carried a felony charge, I think we'd solve a lot of problems. Prison populations would (hopefully) drop and I'd personally feel safer. People going to jail for not bringing harm to society should concern us all. I believe that's what we call the thought police? When ideas and 'undesirable' things are criminalized.
I recommended to one of my State Legislators that he introduce a bill requiring that for every NEW law passed, TWO OLD LAWS must be repealed.
He looked at me like he thought I was crazy.
Then he thought about it a while, and decided that there just might be some merit to the idea.
But he did not introduce the bill...
Completely opposite of the concept of states rights envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
You know what else they envisioned?
That their descendents could sensibly AMEND what they did.
Quote:
I'll be the first in line to reduce the overall laws and regulations in this country....
I suspect that most sensible people would go along.
With rather few exceptions there is almost no meaningful difference in the several sets.
Where there ARE differences, the other 2%, the same basic topics that have kept us from progressing
into what this country could be for over 200 years. Some celebrate such obstinance. Idiots.
Completely opposite of the concept of states rights envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
I'll be the first in line to reduce the overall laws and regulations in this country.... but taking power away from the states and putting everything in the hands of federal government frankly gives me the creeps.
I'm a supporter of states rights but there is a line to be had.
I tend to think the federal government should stick with the big felonies, like murder and rape, and then the individual states can handle the lesser crimes like property crime, traffic laws, and possession of controlled substances, which as far as I'm concerned can be anything from drugs, to alcohol, to pornography. But there's absolute not point for both the federal government AND the state of New York to have a separate murder law with different statutes and definition. It confuses the process. Keep it simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
So if there were no law against murder, would it be ok to murder someone?
The right wing likes to preach that we are a nation of laws. If there is no law, what then is societal recourse?
It's called a middle ground. We can say some laws are unnecessary while still thinking some laws should exist. I think possession of controlled substances shouldn't be a crime, and certainly never more than a misdemeanor. I don't think selling alcohol to minors should be a felony. I think a murder law is necessary.
It doesn't have to be laws are good or bad; look at the individual laws and ask what they're effect is and if it seems unnecessary, it should be repealed.
Read the article. The reason they were ticketed was that the cops had a quota, and if they had just warned the women, they would have gotten in trouble for "doing nothing all day". That, to me, seems like a much bigger problem than the existence of a playground regulation. If there were some creepy guy hanging out at the playground watching kids all day, but not actively harassing them, I'm sure most parents would be glad that there was a law that could be used against him.
As I've said in other threads, police officers would be safer, better respected and treated better if we would quit making them tax collectors.
You know what else they envisioned?
That their descendents could sensibly AMEND what they did.
I suspect that most sensible people would go along.
With rather few exceptions there is almost no meaningful difference in the several sets.
Where there ARE differences, the other 2%, the same basic topics that have kept us from progressing
into what this country could be for over 200 years. Some celebrate such obstinance. Idiots.
There's a difference between amending it and gutting it into a irrelevant relic, which is how most "Progressives" view it.
If there is no practical difference in the principles and morals that shape the freedoms that make up the legal differences between one state and the next allowed, then what is the purpose of having individual states in the first place?
The intent of the founders was that freedom necessitates accommodation of differing opinions within one nation and the best way to live among like minded individuals is to vote with your feet.
"Out of many, one" is supposed to be the definition of our freedom, not our punishment.
We don't need any laws, but I won't really get into that. Yes most laws are stupid. All laws are just an opinion backed by the threat of violence, and most of those opinions are very idiotic and unnecessary. "I don't think people should be allowed to own such and such in this territory. If a lot of people agree with me, we can threaten to cage or kill anyone who disagrees."
So if there were no law against murder, would it be ok to murder someone?
The right wing likes to preach that we are a nation of laws. If there is no law, what then is societal recourse?
What?? Who called for no laws? The only sensible laws are laws that clearly violate another person's rights. Murder, theft, fraud, and rape. In all of those instances someone clearly had their rights violated. Whose rights are violated if I don't wear a helmet or a seatbelt? Do you really believe those laws are in place because the government cares about you? Those are clearly just fund raiser laws. The state makes money of those laws. The "war" on drugs has been a big money maker for law enforcement agencies. No one is harmed if a person sits in their house and smokes pot, except maybe you could argue the person smoking it is harmed. But that person owns their body and it is their right to make that decision in the same way we let people smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol.
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.
