Author Topic: bad laws vs bad application  (Read 510 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21926
  • Karma: 2615
bad laws vs bad application
« on: December 14, 2018, 06:58:47 AM »
This is a very broad topic, but I find myself thinking about it more and more-

The legal system in the US is utterly, utterly fucked.  The laws themselves are often absolutely insane, and their application has much less to do with the way they're written than it does the relative demographics of the people involved in specific cases (especially wealth of the defendant).

I see a lot of talk pop up re: how laws are written and re: how they're applied, including if we were to reform laws, what that would look like in practice, the points the application would inevitably diverge from the intention, etc.

It feels like rewriting laws is a more helpful idea in theory than in practice because the way we then apply the laws renders any good intentions behind reform moot.

So, question- if you had to pick one, the issue of how our laws are written now vs. the issues of how the existing ones are applied, which would you throw more effort at?  And how?

(I know they're intertwined, but, as a though experiment.)
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.

Offline Jesse

  • My mirror shows black (Otherwise known as nigger)
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 6000
  • Karma: 110
  • Gender: Male
  • where mountains throne
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2018, 10:11:13 AM »
I think only basic common sense laws should be implemented. Entrapment should be illegal

Police also seem to do way to much interpreting of laws too. Other than that, I think the criminal justice system is all about shaking you down for money and not actually serving justice. I've seen numerous examples of how someone gets dinged, given a court date only to show up and get another court date. Hoping you miss it so they can up your damn fine

It's a money maker. Nothing more
:skywarp:

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2018, 10:36:31 AM »
I'd put my effort into the laws surrounding the enforcement and creation of laws. :D

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2018, 04:30:40 PM »
I'd put my effort into the laws surrounding the enforcement and creation of laws. :D

As you have many times in the past. Remember how you tried to make this forum a forum about how to govern a forum?
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 41238
  • Karma: -57
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2018, 08:54:14 PM »
I'd put my effort into the laws surrounding the enforcement and creation of laws. :D

As you have many times in the past. Remember how you tried to make this forum a forum about how to govern a forum?


Part of why I said it.

But yeah, every system has problems, and by improving the process by which laws are made is the
best means of preventing those from becoming dangerous.

Until the people vote in a dictatorship with no restraint that is.

Offline Pyraxis

  • Werewolf Wrangler of the Aspie Elite
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16680
  • Karma: 1433
  • aka Daria
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2018, 08:59:40 PM »
I'd throw effort at consistently applying the laws which exist. When rich people get inconvenienced by something, they solve the problem.
You'll never self-actualize the subconscious canopy of stardust with that attitude.

Offline Lestat

  • Pharmaceutical dustbin of the autie elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 8965
  • Karma: 451
  • Gender: Male
  • Homo stercore veteris, heterodiem
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2018, 09:34:05 PM »
Reformation of laws, no contest.

Because one cannot apply a bad law in a good way which supports justice, if the law itself is inherently injust.

Say, one were to look back at the nazi regime, how could, for an extreme example, to make the point, apply a law demanding the burning and gassing of jews, slavs, the disabled, in a way that upholds justice? the law itself, was wrongful, and you can't apply it in a good way. What GOOD way is there to burn or gas the disabled, the slavs? there isn't one.

And say, although it's being legalized a lot, thankfully, now, in the US, how can a law which puts an individual at the risk of being jailed, for selling or possessing weed, it's an inebriating  material, inebriating substance is already sold, in shops everywhere, supported and profited from by the government, alcohol. Alcohol has been responsible for a vast number of broken homes, individual fatalities, people killing other people due to lack of inhibition and flying out of control, addiction, leading to liver failure, liver transplants needed for alcoholics way, way down that path, when that liver could have saved a child with a liver disease, in fact, an adult liver could save more than one child.

Not saying that alcoholics ought not to be given treatment and a second chance, that they ought be left to die, not at all, but if there is the choice between legalizing a plant that has perhaps one or two deaths known through the entire history of it's modern use, and that, AFAIK, in very young children who find a stash and eat it.

But if one intoxicant is sold legally, alcohol, not to mention tobacco, which we all agree I'm sure, is a pernicious habit, yet one which nevertheless, ought to be the free, knowing choice of adults, then all ought to be.

I've got books, dating from the 1700s, medical manuals, and in those days, opium, laudanum, various other preparations of opium, they could be bought freely, all one needed do, was go to the pharmacy, ask for it and pay for the goods sold.  There was no crime committed to get the money by desperate junkies driven to living rough under bridges or in cardboard boxes. Those who did find themselves subject to physical dependence could either choose to maintain themselves on the opium or derivative of it, or choose to detox, by stepping down the dosage, at their own chosen rate, such as to experience no discomfort. Not be told 'you are detoxing this way, at this rate, and we choose how fast, if you suffer, you deserve to'

And in the US, how about the law that allows seizure of property, before conviction of an offense, after an arrest. Seizure of assets in this manner, thus preventing a person accused, guilty or innocent, from paying for legal counsel. And anyone who's ever had a duty solicitor, will know how fucking shit they are, and that they don't really give a shit as long as they  get paid by the system, they don't fight for an accused person's being found not guilty, look for technicalities to wriggle out of something with, they go through the motions, nothing more.

For example, I was once convicted of carrying an offensive weapon, because a mate, had taken a bat with them, and was walking down the street, smashing car mirrors, smashing stuff generally. I had  taken out no weapon of any kind, just with them, not knowing at the time they had the bat. I took it from them, to prevent them acting as they were, and in the UK at least, acting to prevent someone committing a criminal act, is not a crime, even if it means say, disarming an assailant, and as a result, being left the one holding the knife someone was about to stab you with in a dark alley, etc.

*I* was convicted and sentenced to probation, just because I'd taken the bat off the guy to stop him smashing up parked cars, and was left holding it. I had done nothing of the kind he was doing, just took it from him and kept it out of his hands so he couldn't continue. Not even a crime, duty solicitor didn't  bother even to make sure my medical needs were taken care of (I HAD my meds brought to the pig shop, but they were denied me, and as a result, I was made very, very sick.

THAT, is the kind of thing duty solicitors (lawyers in the US of course) are fit for. Fuck all. They don't even bother to follow instructions, never mind to actually put effort into seeing that an innocent man is not convicted and punished. Hell, they won't even bother to challenge an illegal warrant, or to see that items taken in a raid, which are legal to possess, are returned. They just leave you to rot.

IMO, garbage in, garbage out. Be it computer coding, chemistry, or law, you put shit in you get shit out.

And in the US, there is an entire prison industry, a profit-making monstrous machine. Using people as fuel. That ain't right.

And how about, even while they are illegal, say, drug 'offenses' often earning the one caught a sentence harsher and longer than that of a child rapist?
Or mandatory minimum sentences.

IMO both must be enacted. Bad laws struck down, and laws applied wrongfully and responsible for little but injustice reformed, if there is a genuine good reason for the law, but that it is applied wrongly.

Before it gets legalized, and I truly hope such things do, take for example, LSD. It's not a killer, it isn't addictive, people don't butcher people over it, it is active in doses of at low end, 50 thousandths of one milligram, a strong dose being 300 thousandths, 300 micrograms. Yet it is impregnated on paper as a carrier, or dissolved in distilled water, or made into geltabs. Which of course weigh far more than the amount of LSD present.

The US law, counts the entire lot as the drug. So a liter of distilled water containing a few tens or a couple of hundred milligrams of acid, is counted as, given H2O weighs 1g/ml, as a kilogram of acid. And people are sentenced accordingly. Even if one believes LSD ought to be illegal, should someone who has a few milligrams, be convicted as if he had a kilogram? convicted for having distilled water, and quite likely face life in jail as a result?

1kg of LSD would supply every single american citizen, man, woman and child and pet dog with a dose, probably more than one, given a 100ug modest dose, each milligram providing ten such doses.

And is probably considerably greater a quantity, than the world output of LSD per annum, given how few chemists are capable of the skill required to make it, and how difficult the precursors are to obtain, unless culturing ergot fungi, which I can tell you, is a difficult endeavor, Claviceps is a tricksy wee bugger of a family, easy to culture, much, MUCH more difficult to mutate a strain that produces grams per liter of culture medium.

And if you DO manage that, they usually become senescent and degrade after a few subcultures. And strains that produce the valuable lysergic acid peptide alkaloids needed for the hydrolysis to produce lysergic acid, needed for making the LSD, typically do not produce conidia, the asexual, clonal spores which would allow a monoclonal, stable line to be established. It can happen, they exist, but it is very rare.

'Raxy...I'm ashamed of your saying that. Sure, rich people can do what they like.

But the poor? what about people who cannot afford a lawyer who will actually put their ass into the case and do their job, not go through the motions?

Do you ever hear the phrase 'the stinking rich and downtrodden' ? no. Rich people can do what the fuck they like, bar getting caught raping kids or murdering someone with incontrovertible proof. Even then, plenty rich people get away with a lot of fucked up stuff.

And look at it this way. Why should a rich man, be able to get away with the same action which would land a destitute man in prison?
Beyond the pale. Way, way beyond the pale.

Requiescat in pacem, Wolfish, beloved of Pyraxis.

Offline Pyraxis

  • Werewolf Wrangler of the Aspie Elite
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16680
  • Karma: 1433
  • aka Daria
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2018, 07:56:05 PM »
'Raxy...I'm ashamed of your saying that. Sure, rich people can do what they like.

Why do you think it's shameful? It's a pragmatist's position. I should explain better what I intended.

I agree with you about the impossibility of ethically applying Nazi laws, but we're not living in a Nazi regime.

I'm thinking about things like the civil forfeiture you mentioned. The first time some rich jackass is driving down the highway in his fancy car and has it seized on some flimsy pretext, he will start pulling strings to get the law changed. He'll be able to expend a lot more resources to this end than we started with. As soon as rich stoners started getting jailed for pot along with the folk from the ghetto, instead of being able to buy their way out of trouble, they would campaign for more lenient drug laws.

As things stand, disenfranchised people are already getting jailed for trivial things. If it happened equally to privileged people, the problems with the system would be more starkly obvious. No one said the thought experiment had to end with the initial effort. My idea is to set things up in a way that inspires further effort.
You'll never self-actualize the subconscious canopy of stardust with that attitude.

Offline Jack

  • Reiterative Utterance of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Maniacal Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 14550
  • Karma: 0
  • You don't know Jack.
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2018, 11:08:12 PM »
I'd throw effort at consistently applying the laws which exist. When rich people get inconvenienced by something, they solve the problem.
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. ~Anatole France

Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21926
  • Karma: 2615
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2018, 06:56:23 AM »
I'd throw effort at consistently applying the laws which exist. When rich people get inconvenienced by something, they solve the problem.
That's actually a very good point.
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.

Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21926
  • Karma: 2615
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2018, 06:57:48 AM »
I'd throw effort at consistently applying the laws which exist. When rich people get inconvenienced by something, they solve the problem.
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. ~Anatole France
It's an incomplete solution, but it would be a nice start.

As a solution, it would inherently *have to* start picking away at how wrapped up in money the entire criminal justice system actually is, which is a lot of the problem.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2018, 06:57:18 AM by El »
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.

Offline Lestat

  • Pharmaceutical dustbin of the autie elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 8965
  • Karma: 451
  • Gender: Male
  • Homo stercore veteris, heterodiem
Re: bad laws vs bad application
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2018, 04:11:16 AM »
It was just the way it came out as written, 'Raxy hun; 'when it inconveniences the rich...'

Made it sound like the poor and the destitute ought to wait for it to be convenient for some rich bugger to complain about the same thing being used to batter them and stamp them under the jackboot of US govt fascist prison machinery by it's stormtroopers.

In the meantime, that's  too bad. Because the poor get their assets seized and even if they DID have enough to hire a real lawyer, and not be stuck with whoever the courts appoint those who cannot pay any at all, then those assets would have been seized, before trial, making sure they couldn't then hire the lawyer who, despite the client being poor, had saved the money up for.

The poor, the destitute, the downtrodden, they are the ones who suffer the most from such filthy  laws, they are the ones who's lives get ripped apart and the gaping wound shat in by govt-sponsored terrorist stormtroopers, in the vilest and most shockingly, appallingly disproportionate manner. It isn't justice to 'wait until some rich bugger gets..'

Justice isn't justice if it has to wait for a factor like that. That waiting is in and of itself, an injustice, and without due process at that.
Beyond the pale. Way, way beyond the pale.

Requiescat in pacem, Wolfish, beloved of Pyraxis.