Remove all laws of the land. Replace by rules.
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Or post-doctoral:-
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Shap...
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/FACULTY/RARNESON...
... but most likely post pub.
Been waiting for you BV !!! Actually, post pub. Except one of the contributors is er, a solicitor !!! He did't actually think it was an unreaonable suggestion. Explorers in the 18th centurary found that was how the 'uncivilised' tribes discovered in Africa and other countries managed for a 1000 years or so. The tribe chief administered 'justice' on a 'wise man' principle. Of course, they were all savages, and didn't know what they were doing !!!http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Shap...
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/FACULTY/RARNESON...
... but most likely post pub.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 14th September 20:11
sherbertdip said:
robinessex said:
Over to you guys now for this to be shot down in flames
Why get so pissy and throw a tantrum, you asked for responses expecting to get laughed at, you were!BV, you haven't let me down. Exactly the answer I expected. What set me off wondering this in the first place is, if you read as many PH posts as I have in the past 2 yrs, is the number of agrieved posters who complain they have broken a law, and get clobbered, but the circumstances don't justify automatic punishment. And of all the laws PH'ers get pissed of about, it's speeding, which is why I gave it as an example. A simplistic case of course.
Try stabbing someone to death. The legal effect of doing so depends on the circumstances. Anything from life imprisonment to nothing. For utilitarian and resource reasons, some rules are more flexible than others.
You may find what I say predictable, but it's also right. Your suggestion is "get rid of extant laws and replace them by, er, some other ones". In fact, your suggestion appears to be yet another in the endless line of poor old oppressed middle class motorist rants about speeding. You don't really want to abolish the whole law of contract, or land ownership, or theft, or copyright etc, etc. You just want to change the law on speeding, which some people think is the most important thing in the World, but not everyone does.
You may find what I say predictable, but it's also right. Your suggestion is "get rid of extant laws and replace them by, er, some other ones". In fact, your suggestion appears to be yet another in the endless line of poor old oppressed middle class motorist rants about speeding. You don't really want to abolish the whole law of contract, or land ownership, or theft, or copyright etc, etc. You just want to change the law on speeding, which some people think is the most important thing in the World, but not everyone does.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 15th September 07:01
Breadvan72 said:
Try stabbing someone to death. The legal effect of doing so depends on the circumstances. Anything from life imprisonment to nothing. For utilitarian and resource reasons, some rules are more flexible than others.
You may find what I say predictable, but it's also right. Your suggestion is "get rid of extant laws and replace them by, er, some other ones". In fact, your suggestion appears to be yet another in the endless line of poor old oppressed middle class motorist rants about speeding. You don't really want to abolish the while law of contract, or land ownership, or theft, or copyright etc, etc. You just want to change the law on speeding, which some people think is the most important thing in the World, but not everyone does.
Incorrect BV. I just used speeding as a simplistic case. I do realise that in most serious/complex cases, mitigating circumstances are very much considered. I'm just more concerend that with the increase in survelance, that we are going to be convicted of offences automatically, and without consideration of the circumstances. In the past, when BIB were more prolific, a motor offence, although commited, would often result in a stern telling off by Mr Plod, and don't do it again comment, and you were on your way. It seems we are, as a society, moving away from this.You may find what I say predictable, but it's also right. Your suggestion is "get rid of extant laws and replace them by, er, some other ones". In fact, your suggestion appears to be yet another in the endless line of poor old oppressed middle class motorist rants about speeding. You don't really want to abolish the while law of contract, or land ownership, or theft, or copyright etc, etc. You just want to change the law on speeding, which some people think is the most important thing in the World, but not everyone does.
robinessex said:
Incorrect BV. I just used speeding as a simplistic case. I do realise that in most serious/complex cases, mitigating circumstances are very much considered. I'm just more concerend that with the increase in survelance, that we are going to be convicted of offences automatically, and without consideration of the circumstances. In the past, when BIB were more prolific, a motor offence, although commited, would often result in a stern telling off by Mr Plod, and don't do it again comment, and you were on your way. It seems we are, as a society, moving away from this.
This is almost certainly part of the reason the wise men brought in speed awareness courses Dammit said:
It's a sop to the members of the public who feel upset about being caught breaking the law, surely?
Indeed, it may even go some way to satisfying those who think laws are too oppressive so they want them to be changed to rules so they get a soft option rather than a penalty. 
Instead of suggesting a change of name (since ultimately that's the only thing being suggested here) to rule, why not change it to something even friendlier - like balloon, or smile?
So instead of breaking a law (gosh, that sounds ever so severe and unbending!), we can call it 'oopsing a smile'? That's much better!
So instead of breaking a law (gosh, that sounds ever so severe and unbending!), we can call it 'oopsing a smile'? That's much better!
They already do this. It's called an Absolute Discharge - you've broken the law but the judge or magistrate doesn't care so lets you walk away with no fine and no punishment. It's spent immediately, but you have to admit it if you apply for certain jobs.
I've got one - totally silly system. Spend loads of money on a trial and then say it wasn't serious enough to merit any form of punishment. That's the problem with absolute offences - they don't take into consideration common sense until it comes to sentencing.
I've got one - totally silly system. Spend loads of money on a trial and then say it wasn't serious enough to merit any form of punishment. That's the problem with absolute offences - they don't take into consideration common sense until it comes to sentencing.
robinessex said:
Incorrect BV. I just used speeding as a simplistic case. I do realise that in most serious/complex cases, mitigating circumstances are very much considered. I'm just more concerend that with the increase in survelance, that we are going to be convicted of offences automatically, and without consideration of the circumstances. In the past, when BIB were more prolific, a motor offence, although commited, would often result in a stern telling off by Mr Plod, and don't do it again comment, and you were on your way. It seems we are, as a society, moving away from this.
Problem is with the punishment being a telling off is that chances are you would do it again, for the simple reason that you know you'd probably just get another telling off. With speeding specifically, a crime where most people feel they have done nothing morally wrong, there is no desire to actually drive slower - even after a telling off. The telling off really is just an unfortunate digression, a reminder that Plod are actually out there (but impotent presumably due to only being able to give people tellings off).This is the other problem with the notion of discretion in speeding offences - people only promote it as an alternative to automatic enforcement when it goes their way. What they really mean is - I support discretion if it means I get off every time. Discretion, by definition, means the outcome might not go ones way, and the guy before you who got pulled for speeding got the telling off and you don't. The officer was all out of "discretion" that day.
GATSOs already have some flex in their enforcement, and people can also be offered "speed awareness courses" for offences that would in the past attracted points, so there is already some leeway that considers minor transgressions. Were there no limits, with people prosecuted when they're spotted by a BiB, then people would by simple virtue of the fact that they outnumber BiB thousands to one go as fast as they feel comfortable doing. Speeding, unlike murder or something else unequivocally morally wrong, doesn't feel wrong to people who believe they ought to be allowed to do it, other motorists be damned.
All of that is really aside from the fact that a system that isn't omnipresent with serious & known consequences for actions in peoples minds wouldn't function as a means of preserving law & order.
So, if this thread really isn't about speeding, what do you propose as a replacement for the offer and acceptance rules in the law of contract? What's your suggested new rule for industrial design rights? Have you a worked out replacement for the law on local Government finance? What's the new system for oil and gas regulation? etc...
Breadvan72 said:
So, if this thread really isn't about speeding, what do you propose as a replacement for the offer and acceptance rules in the law of contract? What's your suggested new rule for industrial design rights? Have you a worked out replacement for the law on local Government finance? What's the new system for oil and gas regulation? etc...
Word.The man on the street hears "law" and thinks "criminal law". It is literally astonishing how little people know about the systems of rules that shape pretty much everything that they do and experience.
Breadvan72 said:
In fact, your suggestion appears to be yet another in the endless line of poor old oppressed middle class motorist rants about speeding. You don't really want to abolish the whole law of contract, or land ownership, or theft, or copyright etc, etc. You just want to change the law on speeding, which some people think is the most important thing in the World, but not everyone does.
Sums up what I thought admittedly in a bit more depth. I just thought another winge about speeding 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff