Poll: Law- useful or useless?
- Thread starter Demon_Zeya
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You don't count on this, the laws are meant for mere mortals.MaxTheReaper said:
But yeah, they're in no way useless. What would be better? Saying somethings wrong and enforcing to stop as many cases as possible, or saying "FUCK IT" and letting them do whatever they want?
Depends on which officer is working which job. If it's someone responsible with a good sense of what's right, the law works to our advantage. But with someone who takes advantage of that power to further their personal agenda, or when someone overreacts and gets an innocent civilian killed due to his incompetence, that person needs to be brought in line.
It helps slow it down but doesn't get rid of it completely. Soon though we will eventually have tech that will eliminate 99% of it, and then the 1% will go to jail. Maybe.
Anyway what would you suggest we replace the law with? Me?
[sup]I am the law[/sup]
There are three options, total freedom with chaos and death, or zero freedom with order and death. Most people pick number three: ordered freedom with a little death.
The point of law is to create order, we never had it therefore we can't restore it.
Unless we don't die anymore, then the order of nature needs restoring.
[sup]I am the law[/sup]
There are three options, total freedom with chaos and death, or zero freedom with order and death. Most people pick number three: ordered freedom with a little death.
Restore?MaxTheReaper said:
The point of law is to create order, we never had it therefore we can't restore it.
Unless we don't die anymore, then the order of nature needs restoring.
Sometimes.
This thread reminds me of a phrase: "Locks are for the honest people."
What this means is that, to an honest person, a lock says to stay out, and they honor that. A lock is generally not going to stop someone who is committed to breaking in to wherever the lock is securing.
It's the same way with laws; the honest people will follow them, while a criminal could care less whether or not there is a law against what he is doing. Only a few will actually change their behavior because of a law.
Add to that, that (in the U.S., at least) a criminal can exploit the law towards his own ends, as long as his attorney knows the right loopholes. The arresting officer didn't read the Miranda Rights? Case dismissed... Evidence not properly tagged? Inadmissible as evidence...
Only sometimes will the law itself actually prevent a crime from occurring. The rest of it will happen anyways.
This thread reminds me of a phrase: "Locks are for the honest people."
What this means is that, to an honest person, a lock says to stay out, and they honor that. A lock is generally not going to stop someone who is committed to breaking in to wherever the lock is securing.
It's the same way with laws; the honest people will follow them, while a criminal could care less whether or not there is a law against what he is doing. Only a few will actually change their behavior because of a law.
Add to that, that (in the U.S., at least) a criminal can exploit the law towards his own ends, as long as his attorney knows the right loopholes. The arresting officer didn't read the Miranda Rights? Case dismissed... Evidence not properly tagged? Inadmissible as evidence...
Only sometimes will the law itself actually prevent a crime from occurring. The rest of it will happen anyways.
Some have hinted at it already. But law isn't just there to stop crime, it also serves to make penalty systematic. We don't have to form mobs and wave pitchforks, that's comfortable.
Try Seeing what happens without it all the rapists and paedophiles on the streets, murderers and psychotics it would be a very bad world so the answer is a definite yes
... Beccaria spoke about cruel and unusual punishment... ah, whatevr, that's fine. If you can make it relevantWouldukindly said:
'Do you think that our law is effective at stopping crime?'
It depends on whose law 'our' law is. In the US murder is legal when performed by the state, so is torture, these activities are deemed not just illegal but wholly reprehensible in every other Western industrialized nation. In Saudi Arabia & other Sharia countries murder & torture are also legal, although in those countries the criminals also include homosexuals & rape victims.
The question itself is flawed, since it fails not just to contextualize 'our law', but also which crime or crimes are being affected: Different countries have different laws, they have different notions of criminality, they have different legal systems, their people have different rights. For example, statistically Switzerland, which has one of the highest proportions of guns per capita has one of the lowest murder rates, yet they have no death penalty.
It depends on whose law 'our' law is. In the US murder is legal when performed by the state, so is torture, these activities are deemed not just illegal but wholly reprehensible in every other Western industrialized nation. In Saudi Arabia & other Sharia countries murder & torture are also legal, although in those countries the criminals also include homosexuals & rape victims.
The question itself is flawed, since it fails not just to contextualize 'our law', but also which crime or crimes are being affected: Different countries have different laws, they have different notions of criminality, they have different legal systems, their people have different rights. For example, statistically Switzerland, which has one of the highest proportions of guns per capita has one of the lowest murder rates, yet they have no death penalty.
So you would prefer it if there was no law and the rapists got off scot free? How would that be better then a lawful society. Though I may have misinterpreted your response as it was slightly hard to make out.Demon_Zeya said:
Laws will never stop all crimes unless they become so intrusive that they end up being worse than the crimes themselves, which would be bad. However, they are effective in reducing the number of crimes. Look at the amount of murders, rapes, etc. in countries that are currently lawless, and tell me laws aren't useful.
There wouldn't be many rapists left if I wouldn't go to prison for killing them. So, while there may be more first-time offenders for a while, there would be almost no multiple rapists, and pretty soon, the fact that it's open season on rapists would serve as a much better deterrent than the current short prison term. Seriously, the average rapist sees seven years less time behind bars than the average pot felon.Glerken said: