Reforming the law

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Felch
You make a number of good points about the usefulness of speed limits in guiding public behavior, but would you agree that the customary violation of those limits is something to address? I'd rather bring the law into line with what the people do, rather than the people in line with the law.

Perhaps measuring average speeds on stretches of road, adding a reasonable percentage and fixing the speed limit as such. Thus if most people drive 60 mph on a 55 mph road, and you have the limit be 60 * 1.25, you'd wind up with 75 mph. Then you scale the penalties so that 76 would be where 66 was before. The idea I'm pushing is to have a law which is enforceable, popular, and consistent.

A law which only punishes a small percentage of violators is unfair. It does not protect victims, and it often overcompensates by excessively harming those found guilty. Look at copyright law, where people who have a few shared songs in their KaZaa folders are hit with massive penalties, while the vast majority of people download with impunity. That's a different matter of course, but it's an example of what I'd like to correct.

All that added effort and expense is unnecessary. The law (speed limits in general) works as it is. It regulates behavior and protects me and my property by keeping the number of drivers traveling at an unsafe speed, and the unsafeness of their speed, at a minimum. It doesn't eliminate unsafe speeds, but that, like your world of "simple law," is an illusory goal. Here, you're actuaqlly doing the opposite of what you claim to want; you're going from a simple law to a more complex one. How often do you update the speed limits? How do you determine the multipliers for highways, neighborhoods, etc.? Reasonable by whose definition? How do you communicate the speed limits to drivers? It's much easier and just as effective to put up a sign letting drivers know they are liable to get a ticket for exceeding X m.p.h.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the KaZaa stuff, but that's still an emerging area of law, and mistakes are going to be made when new areas emerge, just like in any other field. We can't simply delay those cases because the law isn't clear, for a couple of reasons. One, the case becomes stale when evidence spoils, memories fade, etc. Two, bringing those cases to court, dealing with them as well as we can, then correcting the inevitable mistakes the next time is how emergent law coalesces into established law.

I think you misunderstand me here. Counsel should not be necessary. If the law is too complicated for the people to understand, then how can we expect them to abide by the law. You should be able to go into court, and ably plead your case, without having to know 800 years worth of precedence and a heaping pile of Latin phrases (I studied and enjoyed Latin, but that doesn't mean that everybody should have to do the same.)

In my ideal world, the laws would be straight forward enough that no one would need lawyers to help them sort through the particulars of a routine case. I can see them being practical in complex and unusual matters, but I have trouble with the need for them in a traffic court.

The fact that many of these lawyers have personal relationships with judges, and exploit those relationships for the good of their clients, weakens the very idea of the rule of law. Would you agree?

No. We have mechanisms set up to punish lawyers and judges when those exploitations become unethical or otherwise fall outside the law.

I understand you fine, but your question dealt with this world, not your ideal world. Besides that, as I've been trying to get you to realize, your ideal world is not achievable in today's society. The law must mirror reality, and reality is complex. When the only real legal problem was Grog clubbing someone else's woman over the head (or wanting TANK too much), simple and clear rules were possible. When 300 million citizens interact with one another in millions of transactions each day, simple and clear rules simply can't consider every situation presented to the courts, which results in harsh and/or unjust results, and is why we let the law evolve. As soon as the law evolves to a certain point, which is pretty low, it's more efficient for one segment of society to specialize in the law, freeing up the rest of society to pursue higher priority interests.

On people knowing what the law is so they can follow it, you need to distinguish between criminal and civil law. Criminal law is largely statutory now, while the 800 years of precedent covers the civil realm, for the most part. One of the guiding principles of criminal law is that it must put the public on notice of what behavior is illegal. Criminal statutes have been struck down in the U.S. for being vague about what they make illegal. On the other hand, there's no need for 99% of non-lawyers to know anything about the civil side, much less the precedent on which it's based, because in every day behavior, it basically boils down to keeping your promises and not doing harm to those around you. When it gets much past that, it's cheaper to have a lawyer handle it for you, which is why people would rather spend their money on a lawyer when they need him than their time on learning enough about the law not to need a lawyer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Felch
Actually she hated my guts, for reasons that I'm sure many of you all can understand. No prison was the condition for my plea.

You were an *******? Big shock.

She prevented you from facing prison... are you absolutely sure a jury would have? That'd be the risk you'd have to take if you didn't want to plea.

Absolutely not. I don't even want white collar criminals to go to prison (I think they should be hit in their pocketbooks). Prison is expensive, dehumanizing, and has not proven very effective at stopping recidivism. The only purpose it seems to have is keeping violent people locked up until they're too old to do much damage.

So the Enron folks... get fines? Wow. Recidivism deterrants isn't the only reason we put people in jail. There is societal deterrant first of all, and simply reasons of moral punishment.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Felch


Actually she hated my guts, for reasons that I'm sure many of you all can understand. No prison was the condition for my plea.

And she still imposed half the maximum fine and allowed a plea condition of no prison time. Does that tell you anything about "high and mighty abusive judges"? On the subject of the D.C. judge and his pants, that's also an example of the system working, and working pretty well.

[Felch]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
What specific law/penalty would you like to see regarding driving on a suspended licence?

I agree, you, personally, should not have gotten a year in prison for diving on a suspended licence as your circumstances were pretty mild.

How bout the 12x DUI offender, who is caught driving on a suspended licence for the 5th time? I'd say a year in prison wouldn't be out of bounds there.

What "simple" law/punishment could you conceive of that would cover those two extremes and everything in between? You'd end up with 35 versions of the law to cover all possible contingencies.

Well I think that an unsupervised probation plus a fine is appropriate. The probation would put the guilty party on notice that they should stick to the straight and narrow while the fine would give an immediate and real punishment, while also compensating the state for the costs of enforcement.

Repeat offenders would be charged with violating the terms of their probation, which would be punished on an appropriate scale. Let's say, the first repetition would move you to a supervised probation, where you had to report to a P.O., while offenses after that would be punished with ever increasing fines, and community service.

Drunk Driving should be punished rather severely. While I don't think it is a violent action, it is a dangerously negligent action, which would warrent measures to prevent recurrance. There are already lock-out systems that require drivers to pass a breath test before driving. Expanding these, along with other penalties would be better than locking people up.

It's tough to balance the rights of society to be kept safe, with the need to keep the guilty party useful to society. After all, if you spend a year in prison, you're eating and consuming resources, while giving back virtually nothing in return. Also there's the danger of sending in somebody who made a stupid decision, and releasing someone who has lost their job, but replaced it with new "friends."

I'm not trying to be an absolutist here. I just think that we can do better.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You were an *******? Big shock.

I knew you'd understand

She prevented you from facing prison... are you absolutely sure a jury would have? That'd be the risk you'd have to take if you didn't want to plea.

Avoiding risk is why people plea bargain. Of course the state's only witness didn't show up, so I could have walked, but that's what I get for not rolling the dice.

So the Enron folks... get fines? Wow. Recidivism deterrants isn't the only reason we put people in jail. There is societal deterrant first of all, and simply reasons of moral punishment.

Fines, yes. Community service, and other penalties could also be given. I'm not an expert on all the options, but prison isn't the only way to go about doing things.

Honestly, I wasn't afraid of running into Ken Lay in a dark alley. So I don't really care if guys like him walk the streets. He should have had his wealth confiscated and restitution made to those he wronged. That makes more sense than Club Fed.

Anybody have any ideas for what to do to criminals like the Enron folks that don't involve prison?

[Felch]

Originally posted by Solomwi
All that added effort and expense is unnecessary. The law (speed limits in general) works as it is. It regulates behavior and protects me and my property by keeping the number of drivers traveling at an unsafe speed, and the unsafeness of their speed, at a minimum. It doesn't eliminate unsafe speeds, but that, like your world of "simple law," is an illusory goal. Here, you're actuaqlly doing the opposite of what you claim to want; you're going from a simple law to a more complex one. How often do you update the speed limits? How do you determine the multipliers for highways, neighborhoods, etc.? Reasonable by whose definition? How do you communicate the speed limits to drivers? It's much easier and just as effective to put up a sign letting drivers know they are liable to get a ticket for exceeding X m.p.h.

You make a good point on this.

What mechanisms are in place to punish collusion between judges and lawyers? Do you know how the system works, like are there hotlines you can call or something? I'd be happy to spend my free time going over court records and looking for patterns of favoritism, if it would actually lead to a better legal system.

I understand you fine, but your question dealt with this world, not your ideal world. Besides that, as I've been trying to get you to realize, your ideal world is not achievable in today's society. The law must mirror reality, and reality is complex. When the only real legal problem was Grog clubbing someone else's woman over the head (or wanting TANK too much), simple and clear rules were possible. When 300 million citizens interact with one another in millions of transactions each day, simple and clear rules simply can't consider every situation presented to the courts, which results in harsh and/or unjust results, and is why we let the law evolve. As soon as the law evolves to a certain point, which is pretty low, it's more efficient for one segment of society to specialize in the law, freeing up the rest of society to pursue higher priority interests.

On people knowing what the law is so they can follow it, you need to distinguish between criminal and civil law. Criminal law is largely statutory now, while the 800 years of precedent covers the civil realm, for the most part. One of the guiding principles of criminal law is that it must put the public on notice of what behavior is illegal. Criminal statutes have been struck down in the U.S. for being vague about what they make illegal. On the other hand, there's no need for 99% of non-lawyers to know anything about the civil side, much less the precedent on which it's based, because in every day behavior, it basically boils down to keeping your promises and not doing harm to those around you. When it gets much past that, it's cheaper to have a lawyer handle it for you, which is why people would rather spend their money on a lawyer when they need him than their time on learning enough about the law not to need a lawyer.

I'm just throwing ideas out here, and I want you to know that I really appreciate you taking them seriously enough to respond like this. It's very helpful in sifting good ideas from bad.

And she still imposed half the maximum fine and allowed a plea condition of no prison time. Does that tell you anything about "high and mighty abusive judges"?

What bothered me was that her emotions were a factor in the decision at all. I think that the law is too important to be left up to the whims of a judge. After all, what if next week she's having a really good day, and someone worse than me sweet talks her well enough to get by with less of a punishment than I got? Does that concern make sense?

Fixing the problems with that judge took far too long. I forget the exact amount, but the dry cleaners were forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars protecting themselves from an utterly frivolous lawsuit. Do you remember if they were compensated by the judge?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wasn't afraid of running into Ken Lay in a dark alley. So I don't really care if guys like him walk the streets.

Yes, but plenty of us want him to be punished for his actions... and for what he did, restitution isn't enough (besides, he doesn't have enough wealth to make full restitution to everyone). He should have rotted in a jail cell until he died to pay his debt to society.

[DirtyMartini]

Just to back up a few steps --

Originally posted by Felch

So I guess I'm challenging y'all to come up with something better than innocent men on Death Row

No death row.

Getting back on topic --

You also did a fair bit better than I expected with the driving on a suspended licence thing. I still think that putting sentencing decisions in the hands of legislatures is a tremendously bad idea -- just look at the results of teh mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses that were established (I believe) by Congress: Overly harsh, ineffective, tremendously expensive, entirely arbitrary, and unequitable. If legislatures had that much control over all aspects of crime and punishment, every pet issue of the day would end up with trumped up punishments. Today, you'd have senators promising to revise teh law to send fraudulent or negiligent mortgage lenders to prison. In the 80's you'd have had saving and loans scamsters with life sentences, etc.

[Felch]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
No death row.

Here in MD death row is obsolete anyways. But I'm with you. Too much of a chance to get things wrong, and too much opportunity to turn bad guys into victims of the system.

I still think that putting sentencing decisions in the hands of legislatures is a tremendously bad idea -- just look at the results of teh mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses that were established (I believe) by Congress: Overly harsh, ineffective, tremendously expensive, entirely arbitrary, and unequitable. If legislatures had that much control over all aspects of crime and punishment, every pet issue of the day would end up with trumped up punishments. Today, you'd have senators promising to revise teh law to send fraudulent or negiligent mortgage lenders to prison. In the 80's you'd have had saving and loans scamsters with life sentences, etc.

Excellent point. Leaving the penalties for crimes up to fickle legislatures is dangerous. On the other hand, we already do this, when they set the maximum penalty. What I'd like to see is those maximum penalties come down overall. Too many of them are motivated more by the desire to appear tough on crime, than by the desire to create a better society.

Of course, this all comes back to the ideal versus reality. I suppose until legislatures become reasonable this is really an idea best kept to the OTF.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, but plenty of us want him to be punished for his actions... and for what he did, restitution isn't enough (besides, he doesn't have enough wealth to make full restitution to everyone). He should have rotted in a jail cell until he died to pay his debt to society.

How about make him pick up trash on the side of the road? Every day? Until he died?

The problem there is how do you make him pick up trash without the threat of prison. I think a couple barrels of birdshot would do the trick.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Felch


You make a good point on this.

What mechanisms are in place to punish collusion between judges and lawyers? Do you know how the system works, like are there hotlines you can call or something? I'd be happy to spend my free time going over court records and looking for patterns of favoritism, if it would actually lead to a better legal system.

Check with the state bar association. If they aren't the right place to go, they'll be able to tell you who is. Besides the normal mechanisms in place to punish collusion that apply to non-lawyers/judges, there is the threat of disbarment or other disciplinary action by the appropriate governing body, usually the state's highest court.

I'm just throwing ideas out here, and I want you to know that I really appreciate you taking them seriously enough to respond like this. It's very helpful in sifting good ideas from bad.

Dammit, this is the internet. Don't go thanking me for serious responses. Your supposed to call me an ******* and tell me how you'd kick my ass if I weren't hiding behind this keyboard.

What bothered me was that her emotions were a factor in the decision at all. I think that the law is too important to be left up to the whims of a judge. After all, what if next week she's having a really good day, and someone worse than me sweet talks her well enough to get by with less of a punishment than I got? Does that concern make sense?

Yes, and I agree that ideally her emotions or mood would have no place in the decision. Unfortunately, that's human nature, and present in all walks of life. Also unfortunately, when judges make bad decisions, regardless of the reason, people's basic rights are at stake. The legal system recognizes this, and tries to safeguard against it with appeals, other reviews and rules of evidence and procedure. Like every other part of the system, it isn't perfect, but it works well.

Fixing the problems with that judge took far too long. I forget the exact amount, but the dry cleaners were forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars protecting themselves from an utterly frivolous lawsuit. Do you remember if they were compensated by the judge?

According to a year-old WaPo article I found, the judge ordered him to pay court costs, and was considering attorney's fees, though nobody expected him to be able to pay it. This was before he lost his seat on the bench, so take it for what it's worth.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Check with the state bar association. If they aren't the right place to go, they'll be able to tell you who is. Besides the normal mechanisms in place to punish collusion that apply to non-lawyers/judges, there is the threat of disbarment or other disciplinary action by the appropriate governing body, usually the state's highest court.

I'll look into that.

Dammit, this is the internet. Don't go thanking me for serious responses. Your supposed to call me an ******* and tell me how you'd kick my ass if I weren't hiding behind this keyboard.

Sorry to disappoint

I like to think Poly is different. I even Imran, I just don't like to show it

Yes, and I agree that ideally her emotions or mood would have no place in the decision. Unfortunately, that's human nature, and present in all walks of life. Also unfortunately, when judges make bad decisions, regardless of the reason, people's basic rights are at stake. The legal system recognizes this, and tries to safeguard against it with appeals, other reviews and rules of evidence and procedure. Like every other part of the system, it isn't perfect, but it works well.

Yeah, those prevent the worst of the worst. But many people don't have the resources or energy to protect themselves from every abuse.

According to a year-old WaPo article I found, the judge ordered him to pay court costs, and was considering attorney's fees, though nobody expected him to be able to pay it. This was before he lost his seat on the bench, so take it for what it's worth.

I suppose the judge, like Ken Lay, did more harm than he could fix.

Would you lock him up, Imran?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I suppose the judge, like Ken Lay, did more harm than he could fix.

Would you lock him up, Imran?

Depends on the circumstances. Probably not though. Don't want to have that much of a chilling effect on those who may actually have legitimate gripes.

[Ramo]

I don't even want white collar criminals to go to prison (I think they should be hit in their pocketbooks).

So poor thieves go to prison, while rich thieves get a slap on the wrist. Sweet.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Ramo
So poor thieves go to prison, while rich thieves get a slap on the wrist. Sweet.

Read the thread, please. You'd see that's clearly not my intention at all.