js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/03/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE!! ***
I recently wanted to find out if something was legal locally or not, and the
only way I could think of finding out was to post to this group. Does anyone
have any idea how many laws the average individual must currently avoid
breaking? My best guestimate is probably low, but I'll say a few thousand.
Now, considering these facts: 1.) There is no obvious way for the average
citizen to find out whether some action would break the law, 2.) the average
citizen must obey thousands of laws, 3.) If you break a law you didn't know
about, you receive the full penalty anyway. Doesn't it all seem loaded
against us somehow? We have to obey thousands of laws which we couldn't
possibly learn all of, and if we break one in ignorance, 'Ignorance of the
law is no excuse.'
It sounds like a system set up by Swift! I'm sure it was easier back
when laws were fewer and closer to what could be considered 'right' and
'wrong', but now, a persons intuitive idea of what is right and wrong
bears little resemblance to the unknown laws which he must obey.
Could some 'fix' be made to stop this injustice? Let's see - get rid
of all unnecessary laws -- but which laws are unnecessary?, and who decides?
Place some arbitrary limit to the number of state, local, and federal laws
which can apply to individuals?
Can it truly be 'right' to prosecute someone for disobeying a law which
they never heard of, and which isn't about something which most people
consider a moral issue? If I get a ticket for running a stop sign, and show
the judge a few photographs of said stop sign obstructed by trees and brush,
I guess I'd get off, since I didn't know there was a stop sign there. If
I get arrested for carrying my children in my camper while driving through
Georgia, and I tell the judge that I didn't know that was illegal in Georgia,
I'll still be penalized.
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
--
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
"Hey, my new .signature file really works!"geb@cadre.UUCP (01/04/85)
It is one of the ploys of a totalitarian society to have a great many laws, so many that the average person is guilty of breaking many of them, even in ignorance. Then, whenever the establishment wants to punish someone, they can simply prosecute them for the laws they have broken. As long as you are a good little citizen, they will leave you alone, but just don't forget what they could do to you if they really wanted to. What, you don't think there's any danger of that here? Well, maybe we can arrange to have your taxes audited.
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/04/85)
from Jeff Sonntag: > I recently wanted to find out if something was legal locally or not, and the > only way I could think of finding out was to post to this group. The "standard" way to do it is ask a lawyer. If you do, and he says it's legal, you are generally considered as having acted in "good faith" that you were obeying the law. It will cost you money, however... > Does anyone > have any idea how many laws the average individual must currently avoid > breaking? My best guestimate is probably low, but I'll say a few thousand. You ain't seen nothin yet. There are over one million federal laws on the books and theoretically in force. Add your state laws, local ordinances, and you have a whole passel of 'em. Consider the fact that most people have never read the actual full text of even a single law. Now before you give up hope, realize that even in theory it would not be enough for you to know all these laws by heart--the interpretations of the laws as applied to specific situations depend on a set of court rulings. It is not uncommon for the judge in a case to give an "interpretation" which out-and-out contradicts the literal words in the statute. The sum total of this stuff constitutes an enormous library you couldn't read in a lifetime. > Now, considering these facts: 1.) There is no obvious way for the average > citizen to find out whether some action would break the law, 2.) the average > citizen must obey thousands of laws, 3.) If you break a law you didn't know > about, you receive the full penalty anyway. Doesn't it all seem loaded > against us somehow? Damn right! One has to realize that what the people actually obey is only vaguely related to the words on the books, and what the police enforce (you don't think they've read all that stuff either, do you?) is the same: a kind of "social consciousness" that is much more like the structure of a natural language than the rules of chess. The legal resolution process matches actions taken under the "general consciousness" law and matches them to the "legal books" law in a rather arbitrary way-- you'd get about as much justice by flipping a coin (and save lots of money). > It sounds like a system set up by Swift! I'm sure it was easier back > when laws were fewer and closer to what could be considered 'right' and > 'wrong', but now, a persons intuitive idea of what is right and wrong > bears little resemblance to the unknown laws which he must obey. Exactly. What this means operationally is that we have a government of men and not laws. > Could some 'fix' be made to stop this injustice? Let's see - get rid > of all unnecessary laws -- but which laws are unnecessary?, and who decides? > Place some arbitrary limit to the number of state, local, and federal laws > which can apply to individuals? How about saying that a legislator can't propose, or vote for, a new law unless he can recite, verbatim, all the laws currently in force? I can hear the howls of laughter now--it would slam the legislative process to a screeching halt--but doesn't it make sense that a legislator should know all the laws? Otherwise, isn't it an open admission that we can't really expect the "ordinary people" to? I think this illustrates just how far the legal situation has diverged from reality. > Can it truly be 'right' to prosecute someone for disobeying a law which > they never heard of, and which isn't about something which most people > consider a moral issue? Or to put it in the terms I used above, prosecute someone for something which is ok under the "social consciousness" law. Obviously it's wrong. We have gone too far along with the notion that law is made by a group of popularity contest winners in a building in Washington. It isn't-- good law is *discovered* like the rules of grammar or the laws of physics. --JoSH
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (01/04/85)
I came up with this idea once, though I don't know if it would really
work: for each new law enacted, at least two existing laws must be
either abolished or justified. No law can be justified twice before
all laws have been justified once. (This is not the best phrasing.)
In other words, my idea is that we should perform law ``gc''s every
once in a while.
--
(This line accidently left nonblank.)
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (301) 454-7690
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@maryland