This frikkin' insane!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Solver
And thus a judge's oath is immoral as the judge, by swearing an oath, swears, in essence, to shove his moral convictions where the sun never shines. If a dictatorship passes a law that talking on a cellphone earns a 10 year prison sentence, then the judge's oath requires him to uphold that law. Judges can too easily be instruments of the government, just one of the many ways to control people.

Oh boo hoo. Your argument lets a judge just as easily send an abortionist to death row as let off someone who violated the law, however misguided it is.

[Kuciwalker]

Do you really want to give judges a total veto on any legislation, just based on their personal beliefs?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Solver

It comes down to the people in the state of Georgia. If they believe this is a fair punishment for a person committing this "crime", then ... it is, in their state. That's called democracy (or a republic at least). You can't just say "I don't like that law, it's stupid"; over half of the people in the state liked it or at least supported a representative who liked it (when it was passed).

Meh, laws shouldn't have to be obeyed blindly. That's stupid. They should, ideally, be a guideline and a basis for conflict resolution. And there should be no moronic laws. Which isn't the case.

I also think that the whole "age of consent" thing is ridiculous. As a concept. I hate this artificial legal thinking - draw a line at an arbitrary range and pronounce that people who've reached an arbitrary age can consent. But others can't. That, too, is far from what an ideal justice system would look like. Grrr!

All of the above presuppose that you know what is right. Why do you believe that 51%+ of the people of the state of Georgia are incorrect about what is right or wrong in their society, and you're right? You don't live in their society. You probably don't know a single person from the state of Georgia (in person). You shouldn't even claim to be the one person who knows exactly what your own city's laws are, not to mention another country's. Or are you saying that you personally know better than anyone else? Bah.

This is what democracy is, take it or leave it. The people have the power to decide what is right or wrong, as a group, and we all agree to live with the decisions of the majority. Laws define what is acceptable in society, and should never be only guidelines - otherwise interpretation of them is left up to judges, who can interpret them in many different ways. Laws should be very specific, so that you know what you may and may not do. We have a constitution to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority as best is possible, but beyond that - it's up to the population as a whole to make or change laws. Not up to the individuals.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by LordShiva


It's also called tyranny of the majority

Then go live in a dictatorship

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by LordShiva
It's also called tyranny of the majority

It could be. But the tyranny of the majority will, theoretically be held in check by constitutional protections--such as cruel and unusual punishments.

However, being that this case was up in front of the Georgia Supreme Court, I'd bet this argument was raised there...and shot down.

One of the problems with living in a democracy is that occastionally the people with the correct worldview get outvoted. If I were in the Georgia legislature, I would not have voted for this law. It's a bad law; a filthy law; a wasteful, hateful law. But it is the law.

[snoopy369]

Lawful Good

[Zkribbler]

Eh, the Law is only is good as the yoyos who make it.
Still, it is far better than chaos.

[DinoDoc]

Even at the time the act occurred, genital sex between an under-18-year-old and a 14-or-15-year-old was also a misdemeanor.

Sounds like the legislature was encouraging people to go all the way instead of going with a simple blow job.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Then go live in a dictatorship

A society in which certain individual rights are above the need for majority approval is a dictatorship now?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ten years imprisonment without possibility of parole. Then a life time of being called a child rapist and having his every move watched by the state more then likely having to wear one of those ridiculous radio collars. This morality crap has gone way to far; way beyond anything an intelligent person should tolerate.

Shame on you Oerdin; where are your family values?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ten years imprisonment without possibility of parole. Then a life time of being called a child rapist and having his every move watched by the state more then likely having to wear one of those ridiculous radio collars. This morality crap has gone way to far; way beyond anything an intelligent person should tolerate.

Shame on you Oerdin; where are your family values?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Eh, the Law is only is good as the yoyos who make it.
Still, it is far better than chaos.

It was a D&D reference... alignments are Good/Neutral/Evil and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic. IE, they're entirely separate aspects of personality. One can be lawful, and good (support that which is within the law, and that which is good); lawful, and neutral (support that which is within the law, regardless of good/evil); and lawful and evil (support that which is within the law, and that which is evil). Myself I prefer to think of as lawful and good; but lawful comes first. Changing the laws, is where the 'good' part comes in.

Solver would fall as neutral good, which is someone who cares little about what the law is, so long as the 'right thing' is done. Right thing by his definition, of course.

Pekka is Chaotic Good

[LordShiva]

So a 1980s white South African who votes against Apartheid but refuses to serve blacks is Lawful Good?

[Kuciwalker]

What about the modern fundamentalist christian who votes to ban abortion but doesn't personally shoot abortionists?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by LordShiva
So a 1980s white South African who votes against Apartheid but refuses to serve blacks is Lawful Good?

If the law requires him to do so, then yes.

However, he'd be mostly lawful neutral unless he actively tried to get the law changed. If he just voted against it and was done with it, that's not really 'good' in any meaningful sense.