Forums → WEPR → Starting Over
| 63 | 8170 |
I figured this thread would cause some good debate. Every single one of us complains about at least one law or restriction. However, we never take into consideration the consequences of each law we would like put in place. So, let's start over. Right now, there are no laws and the members on here are the government. Basically, you just post a couple laws you would like put in place and the other members can debate on whether it is a good idea or not. There are no rules against what laws you want put in place. You can be detailed or not such as saying the exact punishment or just saying it is illegal.
This thread has two main reasons. The first is to cause good debate and discussion. It will get those brain juices flowing. The second reason is to show you that changing/making laws is not exactly as easy as you thought. We all complain about the government so now we are the government. Let's see how we do. By the way, we will be the government of America so everyone is on the same page. I will start us off with a couple laws and if you feel they are good, say I agree and post one or more of your laws. Eventually (won't take very long) we will get to a point where people disagree on a law. Okay, I think if you guys read this, you understand what is going on. If not, feel free to ask. Here are just a few laws to get us going.
- Killing another except in the case of self-defense should be illegal. Depending on the intensity of the murder, either life in prison or the death penalty.
- Raping another person should be illegal. I say 10-20 years in prison.
- Child molestation should be illegal. I would say 20-50 years in prison.
- The legal age where someone should be able to have sex should be 16.
More laws will be posted but I figured these would start us off. Feel free to debate/agree and even post a few or more of the laws that you think should be put in place.
- 63 Replies
After going on a rant about how laws do nothing, you finally say, "Also, laws do not change people, they may only prevent them from doing something." You basically just contradicted everything you were saying by stating those words.
Preventing someone from doing something is not good enough for me. Laws only makes one be aware of the punishments. Its nothing. You just got to know that something bad will happen to you if you do something bad. Education at young prevents a lot Total. I mean REAL education, not the crappy training they give at school.
And its a rant now? Cant you take a discussion serious and calm without putting your emotions into it? :-$
That was a test, if you took calm, you passed.
^^^ That was a test too.
I guess targeting the start would be effective, but then again, what about the already corrupt minds influencing the children. Or even the poverty areas? There would have to be huge reforms. This might upset the people and might make some turn their heads from it and would place this attitude onto the children. The children would then have tougher times accepting the government training and might completely ignore it. They might even be more tempted to rebel and become angrier individuals, potential murderers.
You just got to know that something bad will happen to you if you do something bad. Education at young prevents a lot Total. I mean REAL education, not the crappy training they give at school.
Criminals know that they will face a punishment but they do the crime anyways. Education is not going to save anyone. It is up to the individual to decide if they will put it to good or bad use. You do think we are all the same when we are born which is not true at all. Environment does play a big part but that person's brain determines how they take it. Education might actually encourage kids to do bad things. Telling them not to do something might make them want to do it. Ever notice how many kids go against their parents. I still don't see your problem with laws. Why can't we use laws and education together instead of just trying to use one?
They might even be more tempted to rebel and become angrier individuals, potential murderers.
Exactly. The brain is much too complex. We can't just tell everyone to not do something and then they won't do it. Unless you wanted to kill every single person in this world and start over, it is impossible.
Also, there have been studies on anti-social (which is basically disregard for the emotions of another when harming them) that proved that in some cases people would genetically have that trait, and may prevent the environment from suppressing that trait.
Cough* And to clarify an anti-social behavior: An antisocial person robbed a bank, killed two people, and made it without being captured. He drives home, puts away the money, and goes to sleep without even having his conscience affected.
Don't have much time but:
Criminals know that they will face a punishment but they do the crime anyways.
Not necessarily, hence the application of the double doctrine principle, which accounts for intent.
Paradoxically, demonstrating intent is what carries the greatest burden of proof. Increasingly (here come the free-will train, toot toot), the assumption of 'free will unless pleading insane' (or PMS-ing, not to be sexist) is increasingly coming under question in the light of increased awareness of factors that influence our behaviors that we do not necessarily have conscious control of.
Given the direction that we're heading on this front, the implications for the free-will debate in jurisprudence, and the fact that laws are a reflection, a barometer if you will, of cultural standards (however outdated these laws may appear at times), my recommendation would be to focus on developing awareness of factors that affect behavior.
Furthermore, the legal system, properly applied, is supposed to provide disincentives to particular behaviors, moreso than punish those who have done such behaviors. Therefore it's important to note that the legal system not only has to consider the severity of crime (however this may be judged), but IMO more importantly the risk of reoffending.
I'm sure that you, TotalReview, appreciate that saying "this is wrong and should be given this and this" is very much a vague guideline, maybe to start the conversation, but by the time we get to the nitty-gritty of the matter, we shouldn't even be mentioning sentencing until we come to as satisfactory a conclusion as we're going to get.
Cough* And to clarify an anti-social behavior
Anti-social is overused...to be really clear it's best to use socipathic, meaning a pathology of social functioning.
There are a number of horrific murder cases in the news, for example (e.g. that one about the alleged stabbing + beheading + cannibalism on the bus to Winnipeg). In many of these cases, I find it much more useful to start thinking from the point of "is there even a possible rational explanation for this behavior" i.e. you start looking for motive. If none is found or there can be none beyond reasonable doubt, then it makes sense to ascribe the behavior to a pathology (however unfortunate).
Note how this completely ignores talk of guilt. It however does not preclude talk of management- and it is properly the justice system's role (as well as the medical system) to decide on the best course of action- whether it is possible to treat the person such that they might be able to function in society...whether it is even possible for them to function 'acceptably' etc. while considering the consequences for those on the victim's side. It is very difficult not to think of punishment in such horrific cases but ultimately it will come down to the same thing.
Ever notice how many kids go against their parents.
It is they pick up crap thoughts on the streets and that information contradicts the parents sayings.
Environment does play a big part but that person's brain determines how they take it.
Yes based on past thoughts.
Guess why people who live in certain areas think in the same certain ways. Grow a child in the hood and he won't turn out so good.
We still need laws. All I'm arguing on is that laws do not necessarily prevent crimes by a big percentage. There no miracles.
We just need laws to tell people that it is wrong to do something. So in a way, it is education.
It is they pick up crap thoughts on the streets and that information contradicts the parents sayings.
What if the parents are spending too much time working and the children resent that and will try to find a way to rebel? The loss of respect may also make them want to resist what the parents teach them. There are also other situations to consider.
Yes based on past thoughts.
Guess why people who live in certain areas think in the same certain ways. Grow a child in the hood and he won't turn out so good.
Grow an adopted child in a suburban house, and he may still have genetically aggressive traits infused in him.
fixed: Grow an adopted child in a suburban house, and he may still have genetically aggressive traits infused in him from his real family gene pool.
By the way, I do believe we should target the young. You, Drace, and your supporters just need a better system. I'm just helping you out by pointing out the flaws.
Grow an adopted child in a suburban house, and he may still have genetically aggressive traits infused in him from his real family gene pool.
Would this adopted child be adopted at young? Very young...
You, Drace, and your supporters just need a better system. I'm just helping you out by pointing out the flaws.
I'm the only one here it seems.
So anyways... who thinks all drugs should become legal? I'm on that bandwagon. Since The Netherlands and Germany legalized drugs and prostitution a lot has improved. Pimps are non-existent and drug lords went under. With both being legal, there is no reason to go to a violent pimp or drug lord for sex or drugs. Now that its legal, people can go to safe locations for these services.
I don't think drugs could be legalized because of the crazy things it does to people. And if it was legal, would it be legal for all ages? Or above one particular age?
If I had to make drugs legal, I would make them legal to people over 35 years old. If anyone would riot against the government we would just send them to prison for 30 years or less.
5 days for harmless rioting:Signs, Shouting
6 months for drastic measures:Threatening
1 year for violent rioting:Attacking
5 years for murderous rioting(killing someone in the process)
15 years for murder of government people.
But then what if the rioters start committing mass suicide until the government changes the law to the way they want it? That's why whenever you do anything there's always a downside.
-masta_cheef
I do think drugs should be legal. People are still going to do them if they are illegal so what's the point of not making them legal. Legalizing drugs does not make more people want to do them. Alcohol is legal and there are still many people over 21 who rarely drink. Now we get into the debatable stuff...
1) What drugs should be legal? I think most of the drugs except for the drugs that cause serious health risks.
2) What should be legal age? 21 should work nicely. Mainly because at 18, kids in high school could easily get them and then deal to the younger kids.
3) Should alcohol and cigarettes be legal as well? Yes
Also, there have been studies on anti-social (which is basically disregard for the emotions of another when harming them) that proved that in some cases people would genetically have that trait
While one can be born with a trait, lets say aggressiveness. It does not make him necessarily violet.
One cannot kill someone with a gun when he does not know how to pull the trigger.
What I mean is that you be the person who you are rather through society. Being born aggressive does not mean that your going to be violent. It just means that you will thoughts quite aggressively.
Can't someone be a hippie but yet aggressive. Better yet, how would a hippie react to a war? Aggressive I bet.
Hmm. I need to look at the study myself.
three laws that make a nation
1. no killing each other
2. no stealing from each other
3. other than laws 1 and 2, there are no laws!
You must be logged in to post a reply!