Reforming the law

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Felch
On the basis that they are widely ignored. If they were realistic, most people would obey them.

You can't actually believe that, can you? People will always try to go a little faster than the legal limit. The smart legislator would purposefully make the limit 5 mph slower than what he wanted, allowing everyone to think they are "pushing it" while actually doing what is safe for the given road. And that doesn't make the laws meaningless, it just makes them effective. It isn't economically possible (without cameras and automated radar guns and such, and even that is a lot of expense) to monitor every road. If you made all limits exactly what you wanted them to be, and relied on enforcement, there would be much speeding and unsafe driving. If you make limits slightly lower than the ideal, and rely on people then driving a little faster than the posted limit, you get what you want at much lower cost.

But I don't like the idea of the formality, or the absolute power that judges hold over their court rooms. It's contrary to the way that the rest of society works, and I haven't been convinced that there is a benefit.

I'm with you in spirit, I really am. If I ever end up in court, even as a witness, I will end up in jail for contempt of court, because I will tell the judge where to stick his gavel if he tries any bull. And I will refer to him or her as "Judge (judge's last name)" and not "your honor" But, this decorum and procedure does serve a purpose. Remember, courts deal with criminals and has a function to fulfill in a limited time. Someone has to be to be in charge, and since it can't be the defendant, and allowing either lawyer to be in control of the court would be unfair to the other side, and the jury isn't versed in the law, it falls to the judge to keep order. While I may disagree with the "your honor" b.s., the rest of the formality is a way of instilling discipline and order on the proceedings.

Also, not the way the rest of society works? Try referring to any of the following in a non-traditional manner: a)your parents b)a teacher (including god forbid one with a PhD) c)your boss d)a customer at your place of work. And there are more. Granted, you may not have to use "your honor" but showing respect to people who have done nothing to deserve it is part and parcel of our society.

Why? Is driving a car on a suspended lisence something so harmful to society that the people who do it need to be locked up? Or is it more likely that this exists so some lawyers can shake the ordinary people down. You need to get a lawyer to prevent the judge from walking all over you, and the judge can walk all over you because the laws are written to give obscene punishments for minor crimes.

Dude, you broke the law twice (at least). Once to get your license suspended. Then, you ignored the law and drove anyway. If you don't want judges walking on you and lawyers taking advantage of you, don't break the law twice. This goes to your simple laws you were talking about. A simple law is "Don't drive without a license." Anyone can understand that. It doesn't require a lawyer to decipher that. But you failed to obey anyway. Maybe simple laws won't help after all.

Why not eliminate judges, by perscribing reasonable penalties for crimes? As it stands, you often recieve a sentence that is only a fraction of the maximum penalty. Naturally the penalties can be increased for repeat offenders, but the increases should be in the hands of elected legislatures, not decided at the whims of an appointed judge.

Checks and balances. Being elected to legislature is a popularity contest and a part time job (well, you could argue it shouldn't be, and some legislators do work at it full time, but for the most part, part time job). Being a judge involves years of education and being involved with the law day in and day out. I'm quite happy that I get to have a say in who makes the laws, but I'm also happy that someone who has proven he has a brain and who can, in theory, (even if it doesn't always work that way, and it doesn't always work that way) make a decision based on the merits of the case rather than make a decision based on pleasing his constituency is responsible for interpreting those laws.

[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.

Originally posted by Solomwi
On your next post, why would someone with a bottom-up view of the role of government object to the rich being free to buy, with their own resources, the highest quality counsel they can? Sure, we treat people differently. We tell the poor we'll give them an attorney at no cost to them. We tell the rich they're on their own. We tell those in between that we'll provide an attorney, but charge them if we find out they had the means to pay for one themselves. Would you rather the poor be denied counsel altogether?

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?

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Felch]Is driving a car on a suspended lisence something so harmful to society that the people who do it need to be locked up?[/q]

Uh... yeah. You obviously did something to get your license suspended and then you decided to ignore the punishment for your past action and drive anyway?!!

I have no sympathy for you and those who decide to flout the law in such a way may indeed need to be locked up until they learn that the rules apply to them as well.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Seedle
Dude, you broke the law twice (at least). Once to get your license suspended. Then, you ignored the law and drove anyway. If you don't want judges walking on you and lawyers taking advantage of you, don't break the law twice. This goes to your simple laws you were talking about. A simple law is "Don't drive without a license." Anyone can understand that. It doesn't require a lawyer to decipher that. But you failed to obey anyway. Maybe simple laws won't help after all.

I brought that up more as a matter of out of control penalties. While I have no problem with being punished, I feel that setting the maximum penalty at a year in prison is outrageous. Of course, that contradicts my faith in legislatures, but I'm okay with that. I hate legislatures almost as much as I hate judges.

Checks and balances. Being elected to legislature is a popularity contest and a part time job (well, you could argue it shouldn't be, and some legislators do work at it full time, but for the most part, part time job).

Checks and balances are a necessary tool, but not an end in and of themselves. I'd rather my punishment be decided by someone who is accountable to the people.

Being a judge involves years of education and being involved with the law day in and day out. I'm quite happy that I get to have a say in who makes the laws, but I'm also happy that someone who has proven he has a brain and who can, in theory, (even if it doesn't always work that way, and it doesn't always work that way) make a decision based on the merits of the case rather than make a decision based on pleasing his constituency is responsible for interpreting those laws.

We had a high-profile case in DC recently of a judge who tried to sue a dry cleaner for some insane amount of money. He lost not only the case, but also his job. While he's not typical of all judges, he is an example of the potential for abuse that exists within the current system.

When judges are treated like god-kings, they run the risk of letting that go to their heads. It's heartening to know that you recognize them as being people, and not perfection incarnate.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Uh... yeah. You obviously did something to get your license suspended and then you decided to ignore the punishment for your past action and drive anyway?!!

I have no sympathy for you and those who decide to flout the law in such a way may indeed need to be locked up until they learn that the rules apply to them as well.

I got a speeding ticket, and failed to take a required course within thirty days. I was sent a certified letter informing me that my license was suspended, but I wasn't home to sign for it, and after three days the post office got rid of it. In fact, the first time I learned that my license was suspended was when the cop who pulled me over told me. These facts came out in court, and you weren't there. But thanks anyways for your total lack of sympathy. You've proven that you're a douche.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you were sent a certified letter, the post office does three attempts and will leave something on your door to tell you to pick up your certified letter.

And secondly, you FAILED TO TAKE THE REQUIRED COURSE. What did you think would happen? They'd forget about it and send you on your way?

Seeing as your comments on judges ("God-kings"?) and the law show you as a douche, I don't really care what names you sling at me.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Felch


I got a speeding ticket, and failed to take a required course within thirty days. I was sent a certified letter informing me that my license was suspended, but I wasn't home to sign for it, and after three days the post office got rid of it. In fact, the first time I learned that my license was suspended was when the cop who pulled me over told me. These facts came out in court, and you weren't there. But thanks anyways for your total lack of sympathy. You've proven that you're a douche.

Given the sympathy towards others you have demonstrated in other threads I think you are damn lucky the authorities you encountered aren't like you.

However your central point of this thread is valid. Laws are supposed to be an extension of what society finds acceptable, not an imposition on society.

Also, since most legislators used to be lawyers most laws as written so that more lawyers are required to understand them and penalties are often set as to make a political point rather than any basis in harm/benefit to society.

[Lorizael]

Also, you had to take a required course for a speeding ticket? How many other moving violations have you had?

[Felch]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you were sent a certified letter, the post office does three attempts and will leave something on your door to tell you to pick up your certified letter.

Yeah, that's what happened. And I didn't pick it up. So I deserve a year in prison?

And secondly, you FAILED TO TAKE THE REQUIRED COURSE. What did you think would happen? They'd forget about it and send you on your way?

No, I was wrong to do that, and I know it. That's why I plead guilty. It's not a reason for a year in prison.

Seeing as your comments on judges ("God-kings"?) and the law show you as a douche, I don't really care what names you sling at me.

Why does it show me to be a douche? I think you're a douche because you want me to go to prison over a non-violent offense. I think that's a fair reason not to like someone. I'm certainly entitled not to like judges, and to desire a reform of laws.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Given the sympathy towards others you have demonstrated in other threads I think you are damn lucky the authorities you encountered aren't like you.

Good point. I suppose society is safe so long as I stay out of government. I'm cool with that arrangement.

However your central point of this thread is valid. Laws are supposed to be an extension of what society finds acceptable, not an imposition on society.

Also, since most legislators used to be lawyers most laws as written so that more lawyers are required to understand them and penalties are often set as to make a political point rather than any basis in harm/benefit to society.

Thanks for looking at my ideas fairly and not making this into a personal dispute. You make an excellent point about lawmakers writing laws to protect their long-term careers. Perhaps we should require lawyers to give up the right to practice law after they've been involved in legislation - it's an idea at least.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Also, you had to take a required course for a speeding ticket? How many other moving violations have you had?

It was my first one, but I was on my provisional license. Good question.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not a reason for a year in prison.

And you didn't get a year in prison, did you? Perhaps because the judge weighed the circumstances to decide you didn't need the full penalty? Maybe a jury wouldn't have been so forgiving and said, you dumbass, why didn't you go to the class that was a requirement of your previous guilty plea?!

I think you're a douche because you want me to go to prison over a non-violent offense.

Do you want people to go to prison over drug usage or prostitution?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Do you want people to go to prison over drug usage or prostitution?

The acts themselves? No, definitely not. For the nasty business that sometimes surrounds those two activities? Yes, certainly.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And you didn't get a year in prison, did you? Perhaps because the judge weighed the circumstances to decide you didn't need the full penalty? Maybe a jury wouldn't have been so forgiving and said, you dumbass, why didn't you go to the class that was a requirement of your previous guilty plea?!

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.

Do you want people to go to prison over drug usage or prostitution?

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.

[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.