Laws/Enforcement Poll

[SEVERUSMAX]

Should we have more laws, but less enforcement? Fewer laws, but more enforcement (my preference, I admit), fewer laws, less enforcement (sounds almost like anarchy), or many laws and more enforcement (tyranny IMO)? Just a question for you all, in terms of philosophy (albeit a loaded one).

To me, legislation is inherently coercive: it's force. It is compelling people to do things against their will. Such a power should be exercised judiciously and sparingly, with full respect given to the rights of the individual. It is not to be an excuse to impose social policies intended to "moralize" everyone or "equalize" their wealth. What's your take on the issue?

 

[oggbashan]

Answer from part of the UK

We should have less laws, abolish old and useless laws and those laws left should be enforced fairly with discretion.

Explanation:

There are thousands of laws on our statue books that are redundant or no longer relevant in the 21st Century.

There are laws introduced by the UK's government, by the European Parliament, by the various tiers of local government and by regulation issued by ministers under powers delegated to them by parliament.

There are byelaws that apply to particular communities. For example in my community:

I may not swim without a swimming costume covering the first three inches of my arms and legs if male and without a skirt extending six inches below my crotch if female.

I may not swim on a certain beach after 7am if male or on another beach after 7am if female.

I am forbidden from conducting my ship, yacht, dinghy, boat or personal water craft at a speed of higher than 8 knots between a line 800 metres out to sea from the high water mark even though the beach dries out to a line 1,000 metres from the seawall and I can't do anything except walk on the mud...

I must obey all flag and sound signals from the Pier Master even though he doesn't exist and the Pier has been destroyed by the sea...

I cannot ride my bicycle through the park, not even on the designated and marked cycle track.

I must not keep pigs nor make gunpowder in my garden...

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

More laws or fewer seems inconsequential to me. How bout a rational system of laws? Applied evenly.

First of next year, purge ever law in the penal system. Start from scratch. Working from th eold laws, write only those that still apply, need to be enforeced and put teeth into them.

While I'm at it, Santa, I want a pony

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

We should have less laws, abolish old and useless laws and those laws left should be enforced fairly with discretion.

Explanation:

There are thousands of laws on our statue books that are redundant or no longer relevant in the 21st Century.

There are laws introduced by the UK's government, by the European Parliament, by the various tiers of local government and by regulation issued by ministers under powers delegated to them by parliament.

There are byelaws that apply to particular communities. For example in my community:

I may not swim without a swimming costume covering the first three inches of my arms and legs if male and without a skirt extending six inches below my crotch if female.

I may not swim on a certain beach after 7am if male or on another beach after 7am if female.

I am forbidden from conducting my ship, yacht, dinghy, boat or personal water craft at a speed of higher than 8 knots between a line 800 metres out to sea from the high water mark even though the beach dries out to a line 1,000 metres from the seawall and I can't do anything except walk on the mud...

I must obey all flag and sound signals from the Pier Master even though he doesn't exist and the Pier has been destroyed by the sea...

I cannot ride my bicycle through the park, not even on the designated and marked cycle track.

I must not keep pigs nor make gunpowder in my garden...

Og

"Fairly and with discretion..." a good overall idea. But whose discretion and what would be considered fair?

Here's a question for you: why imprison people, and thus punish their families too, when corporal punishment would only punish the criminals and allow them to work and provide for their families? Does prison really make the streets safer, or does it simply harden the criminals and leave children without fathers?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

More laws or fewer seems inconsequential to me. How bout a rational system of laws? Applied evenly.

First of next year, purge ever law in the penal system. Start from scratch. Working from th eold laws, write only those that still apply, need to be enforeced and put teeth into them.

While I'm at it, Santa, I want a pony

Cut. Perhaps "sunset" provisions on every existing law, thus allowing them to be re-voted?

 

[oggbashan]

"Fairly and with discretion..." a good overall idea. But whose discretion and what would be considered fair?

Here's a question for you: why imprison people, and thus punish their families too, when corporal punishment would only punish the criminals and allow them to work and provide for their families? Does prison really make the streets safer, or does it simply harden the criminals and leave children without fathers?

We imprison fewer people per 100,000 population than the US, yet we imprison a proportionately higher number than most other European countries. We also have a significantly higher crime rate than most other European countries.

The most frequent complaint that I get is that we don't send enough people to prison and we let them out again too soon. Once a rapist/mugger/burglar is in prison he (usually he) isn't raping/mugging/burgling. Any other punishment means that he can continue to offend.

We have been experimenting with weekend jail - the convicted person works normally during the week and is in jail from Friday night to Monday morning. It isn't working too well because our jails are too crowded.

When we had corporal punishment many saw it as a rite of passage, a statement of masculinity, macho-hardness. It didn't deter reoffending. That is the real problem about alternatives to prison. If the alternative does not stop the criminal repeating the crime, then prison is the only way to stop the crime being committed.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

Og:
You have hit on the problem, but perhaps not directly. The people who actually run a community decide which laws are to be enforced and which are not. Since many laws are not being enforced, it seems to those in charge that it is not necessary to keep laws up to date. Many. many comunities in the USA still have laws on the books that require a motor vehicle to be preceded by a flag man in the day and a lantern bearer at night. Such ridiculous laws undermine respect for even the good laws. [A pig, constable? I thought it was a dog. Don't dogs go oink? Terribly sorry old man, I shall take spot to the pound in the morning!]

We should have less laws, abolish old and useless laws and those laws left should be enforced fairly with discretion.

Explanation:

There are thousands of laws on our statue books that are redundant or no longer relevant in the 21st Century.

There are laws introduced by the UK's government, by the European Parliament, by the various tiers of local government and by regulation issued by ministers under powers delegated to them by parliament.

There are byelaws that apply to particular communities. For example in my community:

I may not swim without a swimming costume covering the first three inches of my arms and legs if male and without a skirt extending six inches below my crotch if female.

I may not swim on a certain beach after 7am if male or on another beach after 7am if female.

I am forbidden from conducting my ship, yacht, dinghy, boat or personal water craft at a speed of higher than 8 knots between a line 800 metres out to sea from the high water mark even though the beach dries out to a line 1,000 metres from the seawall and I can't do anything except walk on the mud...

I must obey all flag and sound signals from the Pier Master even though he doesn't exist and the Pier has been destroyed by the sea...

I cannot ride my bicycle through the park, not even on the designated and marked cycle track.

I must not keep pigs nor make gunpowder in my garden...

Og

 

[cloudy]

I can tell you horror stories from my own experience. Most here have already heard them, since they sort of went through it with me.

Suffice to say that 300 lb. cops need to run from me.

 

[SeaCat]

Bwahahahahahahaha

Oh my, I think I just hurt myself over this one.
I can well imagine the comments made about any politician here in the United States attempting to repeal any law on the books, no matter how inane or useless it may be.

Also you must remember, one of the few ways a politician can be graded here is on the laws they create.

Cat

 

[Weird Harold]

More laws or fewer seems inconsequential to me. How bout a rational system of laws? Applied evenly.

First of next year, purge ever law in the penal system. Start from scratch. Working from th eold laws, write only those that still apply, need to be enforeced and put teeth into them.

While I'm at it, Santa, I want a pony

What she said.

We need very few new laws and many of the laws we do have need to be enforced better.

On the other hand, many of the laws the US spends the most enforcing should be repealed and most of the people in prison because of them should be pardoned.

It really isn't a question of more or less, but a question of rationality -- There are alot of laws that just make you say WTF!

What rational reason can there be for passing a law against carrying an ice-cream cone in your pocket? It's one of the classic "strange laws" and does or did exist in several jurisdictions, but I've never been able to figure out why.

 

[Pure]

One issue, sev,

that gets overlooked, since most people agree with fewer and/or more rational laws--what is the rest of society like? Criminal law is just a minor force in keeping order. Creating disorder are things like poverty and drug addiction, not to say attitudes and beliefs (e.g. I'll never get anywhere in the system.)

Since the second issue, drugs, overlaps yours, I'd ask: to deal with US drug addiction: more laws or fewer; more enforcement or less?

I think you can see that 'more enforcement', even of fewer laws could be but a small part of the 'solution', to the extent there is one.

--
It's also relevant to ask, "What do you mean 'more enforcement'?" Do you mean Capture more bad guys using more police? Streamline the court process so that the accused bad guys more often get sent up?
(How? eliminate the ban on tainted evidence and confession obtained under duress?).

Or do you simply mean longer prison terms, fewer paroles, maybe a 'two strikes' law instead of a 'three strikes' law.

Without trying to guess your meaining, I'd say some readers of this thread simply think in terms of longer prison terms, of serving the actual time, of sentencing minimums (perhaps increased). But I suggest there's not much evidence that that would address the problems you or others have in mind.

I leave with one thought that may be relevant: Some criminologists have argued that the certainty of beling caught and or receiving *some* punishment is the key variable. THAT must be upped.

Severity of punishment is just a non-starter, on this theory, esp--as will almost always be the case-- if applied to 1% of crimes, and on an erratic basis (say, depending on one's color).

 

[Boxlicker101]

I would guess that about three quarters of the laws on the books should be eliminated. That's just a guess, by the way, with no evidence to support it. What are called "victimless crimes" should not be crimes. Stupid laws that some people have cited, such as carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket, should also be eliminated. I like the concept of the three strike law but I voted against it when it was on the ballot a few years ago. I thought it was too broad. If it had been three crimes involving violence or potential of violence, I would have been all for it. For some crimes, one strike is enough.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

"Truth in sentencing" would be a good idea. I'd even settle for "half-truth in sentencing". Currently, sentences are a lie. If we must, as Og insists, use incarceration, then let it scare off more dads from putting their kids in such a situation. 50% to 80% of the sentence, at least, should be served. And, yes, certainty of SOME punishment would help. If punishment is a joke, then why bother having a law on the books in the first place.

And Box is right. For some crimes (murder, for instance), one should never leave prison alive (whether means death or life imprisonment).

Reducing the number of laws on the books is another start. Like I said, having laws that make no sense and are rarely enforced gives judges and cops too much power and opportunity for corruption, not to mention reducing reverence for the law. How many people casually break any law that is inconvenient these days. People who mostly obey the law and pay their taxes still do illegal things, knowingly, because they have gained some degree of contempt for the laws of the land. Mind you, having unconstitutional laws also weakens respect for the law, as the Constitution is the supreme law and politicians consistently set a bad example in trampling it.

 

[oggbashan]

Money

It costs money to cancel an out-of-date law.

The examples I quoted of local laws would cost our community at least £25,000 each to repeal. Would that be a good use of our taxes?

The total number of out of date local laws hasn't been calculated properly but an estimate is 500. 500 x £25,000 = £12.5 million for a population of 100,000. Ouch!

It costs money to run prisons. It costs money for the alternatives to prison.

It has been estimated that looking after a convicted criminal under 18 costs much more than sending him to the most expensive public school such as Eton or Harrow as a boarder.

Part of the problem of the UK prisons is that they are used to house illegal immigrants and those who are really mentally ill who should be in closed hospitals that don't exist. Those two categories use a fifth of our prison space.

The public and press are getting annoyed by minor criminals who reoffend frequently. A local thug was arrested in the morning for an attack on someone, released on bail in the afternoon, and attacked the man, and the witnesses, again that evening. He was arrested again and this time remanded in custody. He was on release from prison after serving some time for previous attacks even though he had a record of re-offending within hours of release from jail on earlier occasions. He is now in jail. He will be out again within months...

The cost to the community of this one man is enormous. Three strikes? He has fourteen - all for assualt causing severe injuries. Yet the sentencing laws do not allow our judges to give him a real sentence that would protect the community.

Og

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It costs money to cancel an out-of-date law.

The examples I quoted of local laws would cost our community at least £25,000 each to repeal. Would that be a good use of our taxes?

The total number of out of date local laws hasn't been calculated properly but an estimate is 500. 500 x £25,000 = £12.5 million for a population of 100,000. Ouch!

It costs money to run prisons. It costs money for the alternatives to prison.

It has been estimated that looking after a convicted criminal under 18 costs much more than sending him to the most expensive public school such as Eton or Harrow as a boarder.

Part of the problem of the UK prisons is that they are used to house illegal immigrants and those who are really mentally ill who should be in closed hospitals that don't exist. Those two categories use a fifth of our prison space.

The public and press are getting annoyed by minor criminals who reoffend frequently. A local thug was arrested in the morning for an attack on someone, released on bail in the afternoon, and attacked the man, and the witnesses, again that evening. He was arrested again and this time remanded in custody. He was on release from prison after serving some time for previous attacks even though he had a record of re-offending within hours of release from jail on earlier occasions. He is now in jail. He will be out again within months...

The cost to the community of this one man is enormous. Three strikes? He has fourteen - all for assualt causing severe injuries. Yet the sentencing laws do not allow our judges to give him a real sentence that would protect the community.

Og

Damn, and I thought that MY government was soft on crime!

 

[rainyguy]

I believe there are only two elemental formats of society.

We have Justice based society

and we have Mercy based society.

These are two very different types and subsequently, the resulting flow of social well-being stands far apart from one another.

Currently we live in a Justice based society.

as for laws and the enforcement of said laws, I think we should focus on enforcing what laws we have.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I believe there are only two elemental formats of society.

We have Justice based society

and we have Mercy based society.

These are two very different types and subsequently, the resulting flow of social well-being stands far apart from one another.

Currently we live in a Justice based society.

as for laws and the enforcement of said laws, I think we should focus on enforcing what laws we have.

That's nonsense. We need justice and we need mercy and the two are not incompatible. If some guy beats up his SO and goes to court and the judge says "Naughty, naughty" and leaves it at that, there has been no justice. No mercy either, at least not for the SO because, since he has gotten away with it, he will do it again and again.

Justice is a person getting the punishent that is deserved. Mercy is seeing to it that no innocent person is punished or abused and that no guilty person is punished excessively. Ted Bundy or Tinothy McVeigh showed no mercy for any of their many victims and the law showed no more mercy for either of these scum than it had to. They got justice, or at least as close to it as could be done.

I agree that, after eliminating the many stupid and harmful laws, we should enforce the ones that are left.

 

[Recidiva]

Fewer laws, more enforcement.

I'd like to see prostitution and drugs made legal.

Consequences to come down on you like a non-negotiable ton of bricks.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Fewer laws, more enforcement.

I'd like to see prostitution and drugs made legal.

Consequences to come down on you like a non-negotiable ton of bricks.

Pleasantly surprised.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Fewer laws, more enforcement.

I'd like to see prostitution and drugs made legal.

Consequences to come down on you like a non-negotiable ton of bricks.

Most of the laws against prostitution and drugs are what I include as stupid and/or harmful. They just drive these major industries underground and eliminate what regulation would be necessary.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Most of the laws against prostitution and drugs are what I include as stupid and/or harmful. They just drive these major industries underground and eliminate what regulation would be necessary.

Precisely.

 

[oggbashan]

Prostitution is legal in the UK.

Making money from prostitutes is not: even if the taxman does.

Soliciting in a public place is illegal.

One of our local prostitutes enrolled as a member of our Chamber of Commerce. No wonder I am their VICE-President.

Og

 

[Recidiva]

Most of the laws against prostitution and drugs are what I include as stupid and/or harmful. They just drive these major industries underground and eliminate what regulation would be necessary.

There are several things that do this, immigration law, drug law, sexual laws.

There are consequences to irresponsible behavior that need to be well-explored, well-educated and enforceable.

So instead we have a sub-class of "second class citizens" to be take advantage of, a black market of sex and drugs. I could do without them. I could also do without honest people putting themselves on the line to "enforce" these gray areas and losing bits of themselves or the whole of themselves to the issues.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

If I had to pick, I'd say fewer laws, more enforcement.

Ideally, I'd like to see no "laws" at all. Just a case by case review of the offender. Let common sense prevail. A repeat offender will end up with a harsher and harsher punishment. In the case of really heinous crimes, such as rape or murder, the strictest punishment is immediately applied. The "blanket" laws we have now don't, and possibly can't, take into consideration every possible circumstance. Which is how it ended up such a convoluted mess, with "precedents" being set, and so forth.

Of course, I have no legal experience whatsoever, and there are most likely all kinds of issues with what I just outlined, but it's what I'd like to see.

 

[Pure]

I confirm that!

Og said,

Prostitution is legal in the UK.

Making money from prostitutes is not: even if the taxman does.

Soliciting in a public place is illegal.

This is pretty close to the Canada situation.

Isn't it odd that the 'socialist' countries (Canada, UK, Sweden, etc) have managed to END government interference with individuals in this area. And same for smoking a joint.

Throughout the 'liberty loving' US--justly proud of its historic Bill of Rights-- prostitution is llegal (state law), except in a dozen counties in Nevada. Smoking a joint is illegal, and depending on the mood of the police, your color, etc. can get you a jail sentence.

We have to ask, Why are there so many laws on the books: part of the answer is that a certain broad public sector, not posting in this thread, have a religious or moral agenda, which they want embodied in the law.