"Why pass laws that criminals won't follow anyway?"

[BoyNextDoor]

Can anyone help me with this line of reasoning? It does not really make sense to me but a lot of people repeat it and seem to get it.

Aren't all laws potentially not going to be followed by criminals?

 

[Squibbs]

Why make weed illegal?

I'm going to smoke it anyways.

 

[Balladeer08]

Can anyone help me with this line of reasoning? It does not really make sense to me but a lot of people repeat it and seem to get it.

Aren't all laws potentially not going to be followed by criminals?

OBVIOUSLY because if you don't have laws for them to break, you can't label them criminals.

It would appear your brain is WAY overdue for an oil change. Get that taken care of.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

OBVIOUSLY because if you don't have laws for them to break, you can't label them criminals.

It would appear your brain is WAY overdue for an oil change. Get that taken care of.

And I don't understand your response either. What is so "obvious"?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Can anyone help me with this line of reasoning? It does not really make sense to me but a lot of people repeat it and seem to get it.

Aren't all laws potentially not going to be followed by criminals?

No. Real life isn't like a Batman cartoon.

 

[Comshaw]

"Why pass laws that criminals won't follow anyway?"
Can anyone help me with this line of reasoning? It does not really make sense to me but a lot of people repeat it and seem to get it.

Aren't all laws potentially not going to be followed by criminals?

I've heard this quoted many times before and even though it's phrased wrong I understand the reasoning behind it.

It's not that the criminals won't follow the law, it's that the powers that be will not enforce that law as it should be and society will not fund the facilities to carry out the punishment proscribed for an infraction.

Comshaw

 

[RobDownSouth]

Can anyone help me with this line of reasoning? It does not really make sense to me but a lot of people repeat it and seem to get it.

Aren't all laws potentially not going to be followed by criminals?

Guns make weak people feel empowered, important and embiggened.

As such, threats to take away their most precious possessions (both real and imagined) tends to cloud their collective judgment so that any argument in favor of "moar guns! MOAR GUNS DAMMIT" seems both valid and rational to them.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No. Laws exist for pols to fuck with you when they want to.

 

[mercury14]

I've heard this quoted many times before and even though it's phrased wrong I understand the reasoning behind it.

It's not that the criminals won't follow the law, it's that the powers that be will not enforce that law as it should be and society will not fund the facilities to carry out the punishment proscribed for an infraction.

Comshaw

It still doesn't make sense though. If there's a shortage of prison space why pass laws? Hmm...

Regarding the current background check legislation that makes almost all gun sales require background checks we're of course hearing this quote a lot. But the reason enforcing existing laws better isn't the answer is because existing laws don't require background checks in many circumstances. I'm in favor of enforcing existing laws as they were intended but if they written inadequately in the first place I think it's possibly justified to bring them up to snuff.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No. Laws exist for pols to fuck with you when they want to.

Spoken like a true anarchist.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Why make weed illegal?

I'm going to smoke it anyways.

Why make underage drinking illegal?

 

[blackleggings]

No. Real life isn't like a Batman cartoon.

What? Batman isn't real?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6RppxhOdby4

 

[LucyH]

It's not that the criminals won't follow the law, it's that the powers that be will not enforce that law as it should be and society will not fund the facilities to carry out the punishment proscribed for an infraction.

Or they can't reasonably enforce it. In either case, the law just becomes a way to hassle people you don't like, and accomplishes little else.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm really curious where this idea that criminals don't follow laws comes from. Especially since everybody on this site is a criminal and we all have standards.

 

[kbate]

I think the real question is: Why pass laws that do not affect crime and only affect those who have no criminal inclination.

And Mercury, one more time. How are you planning to enforce the background check on person to person firearm sales without a national firearms registry and periodic inspections? What is the point of adding an unenforceable law to the books, one that likely will only ever be cited during 'sting' or 'entrapment' operations?

 

[Sean Renaud]

What kind of law only effects people with no criminal inclination while leaving criminals alone? NONE.

 

[Comshaw]

It still doesn't make sense though. If there's a shortage of prison space why pass laws? Hmm... (snip)

What part of "...society will not fund the facilities to carry out the punishment proscribed for an infraction." isn't clear?

Comshaw

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I think the real question is: Why pass laws that do not affect crime and only affect those who have no criminal inclination.

Don't pretty much all laws fit into this category?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Don't pretty much all laws fit into this category?

Only because it's not illegal until it's against the law.

 

[Liar]

Don't pretty much all laws fit into this category?

Myeah. I think you know what the gist was here... That for instance in the case of gun control laws, the end goal is not to control guns per se. That's a means to and end: to reduce the amount of another crime - gun violence.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I don't know what the gist is. I am not trying to specifically talk about guns either. I hear the argument, and I hear a lot of people echo it and I can't see the reasoning behind it at all. I am trying to not just think of it as complete bullshit because maybe there is something I don't get.

It seems to me that laws are passed not so much as to prevent unwanted behavior as they are to let society punish the transgressor, and the punishment is the deterrent. That part I get.

"Why pass laws that criminals won't follow anyway?" - I think the answer is "so we can punish them when they don't follow them". Right?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Except that doesn't seem to cover a lot of laws. The reason why it's illegal for example to drive while talking on your cell phone, or to drive above the speed limit, or to drive while drunk isn't so we can punish people after the fact. It's to prevent the act from happening in the first place. We can argue how well it works but the goal isn't punishment after the fact, it's prevention.

 

[mercury14]

I think the real question is: Why pass laws that do not affect crime and only affect those who have no criminal inclination.

And Mercury, one more time. How are you planning to enforce the background check on person to person firearm sales without a national firearms registry and periodic inspections? What is the point of adding an unenforceable law to the books, one that likely will only ever be cited during 'sting' or 'entrapment' operations?

How does the bill affect people who have no criminal inclination?

As far as enforcement there are already weapons purchasing stings. But other than that if background checks always have to be done then law-abiding people will comply and will not sell to folks willy nilly.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Don't pretty much all laws fit into this category?

Jaywalking.

 

[oggbashan]

There are two questions to be asked before making a new law:

1. Will the average citizen respect it?

2. Will it solve the problem that it is supposed to address?

If the answer to either question is No, then it should not be passed.

If the two answers are Yes, then 3. Can the community/society/country afford to enforce it?

If the answer to that question is No, then it should not be passed.

But the answers may change with time.

Prohibition was wrong because the answers to Questions 1 and 2 were No, although those proposing Prohibition perhaps didn't realise that at the time.