0
   

A Question About Law

 
 
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 10:37 am
What is the overall goal of the law? Is it to prevent crime in the first place or is it there to punish it after it has already taken place?

If both, then which one takes priority over the other? Which one lead us to our formulation of 'law' in the first place? Was it created with the idea of preventing crime or punishing it?

To me, the overall prevention of crime should take priority over the mere punishing of crimes which have already taken place. We have, regarding law, gone too far in the direction of crime-punishment and not far enough in its prevention. More stern punishment does not prevent crimes, it only deters them.

Simply 'not going to prison' is not enough of an incentive to not commit a crime. In fact, it is not an incentive at all. If I told you feverishly not to do something and you asked me why not, and I told you that everything would stay as it is now if you could refrain from doing that thing you would laugh at me and do it anyway, right? There has to be, in my thinking, more incentive to not commit crimes in the first place.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,993 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
trying2learn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 12:07 pm
@JPLosman0711,
My answer to your question is both.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 12:10 pm
@trying2learn,
Yes, but if that is the case, which one is to have greater importance? Does the punishment of a crime help as much as if the crime could have been prevented?
0 Replies
 
nqyringmind
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 01:26 pm
@JPLosman0711,
IMO a law is a rule. Punishment is the consequence for not following the rule(s). Punishment and law are mutually exclusive.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 02:20 pm
@nqyringmind,
But what is the intention of the law or rules being implemented?
nqyringmind
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 03:30 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Order, regulation, structure, protection...
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 03:33 pm
@nqyringmind,
I believe 'order, regulation and structure' are just different ways of describing the same thing.

That same thing is protection, but how does it protect anyone if its main goal is punishment and not prevention? No one gets protected when a punishment is carried out for a crime which was already committed.
nqyringmind
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 03:48 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Each has its nuance with regard to meaning.
Your questions was about intention.
My answer addresses intention which is interchangeable with "main goal"
The community is protected when the burglar is being punished with jail time for the crimes he already committed.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 04:19 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
To me, the overall prevention of crime should take priority over the mere punishing of crimes which have already taken place. We have, regarding law, gone too far in the direction of crime-punishment and not far enough in its prevention.

If you look at the history of Law, you will find that, contrary to your claim, Law started off with little to no attempt at other preventative measures (so we can't have leaned further towards using law just for punishment) - and only in the last 100 years or so, has money started pouring into preventative measures...and in the last 30 years or so the amount pouring into preventative measures has comparatively exploded.

'
- driver licencing (although a law, it's aim to to limit, as a preventative measure, driving to those who can drive, and understand the road rules - thereby preventing offences committed)
- mental health programs
- civil courts (where disputes can be resolved, eg. monies owed, before people take matters into their own hands, and go over into the criminal courts)


- drug rehab
- domestic violence shelters
- child safety departments
- mediation programs (these programs are growing)
- citizenship education in schools

- gun registration (although a law, it's aim to to keep guns out of the hands of nutters...and perhaps to limit guns to people who have completed safety courses, or who have secure storage etc)
- codes of conduct (govt encourages private sectors like casino's, gambling organisations to set codes of conduct to, for example, prohibit problem gamblers...problem gamblers often steal to support their habit, or leave their children unattended)
- laws available online


Those are just initiatives off the top of my head - I'm sure there's any number of other initiatives to keep matters from going as far as criminal courts.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 04:24 pm
@nqyringmind,
Quote:
Each has its nuance with regard to meaning.


I disagree. Each one of the words you used has very vague meaning, in fact, I contend that even you know very little about what each of them is intended to mean and also that-which they mean are very similar if not exactly the same.

Quote:
Your questions was about intention.


My question was about the original intentions behind the introduction of law as well as continuing to practice it.

Quote:
My answer addresses intention which is interchangeable with "main goal"


Your answers didn't address anything as you gave 3 words which all basically mean the same thing. I'm not condemning you here, I know what you're saying. Law does give a sense of structure, control, power and also predictability. I may be giving your answers a bit more credit than they were worth as you were only able to bark out 4 words.

Quote:
The community is protected when the burglar is being punished with jail time for the crimes he already committed.


Not necessarily. It might make everyone feel a little bit safer but it isn't necessarily so. It wouldn't take a wild stretch of imagination to think that just because someone did something once has no impact on what they will do in the future. Also, the point is to prevent the crime before it ever takes place, this way we're not left with only being able to 'grasp' at he 2-second good-feeling of getting revenge on someone in order to feel 'safe'.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 04:39 pm
@vikorr,
Well, clearly those ways are not working.

The way I see it, the only way to prevent crime is to not only create more incentive for the individual to not commit them in the first place. Notice that 'drug rehab' isn't exactly incentive. But you also have to have much more common sense involved once someone has committed a crime, or is thought to have.

I also take issue with the idea of law having a far too wide-spread view of humanity as opposed to individualistic, the latter of those two would be ideal. But that's another story.

Here's what I propose:

You get rid of the whole idea of 'prosecution' and 'defense' and you have 3 judges(I guess you'd call them that) for each county of each state. You can keep the police, they will be used to bring the evidence in front of the 3 'judges'. These 3 guys will decide with the evidence in front of them whether the suspect has committed the crime or not and they deal out the punishment. With this system anything is on the table, if they feel he needs to re-build a roof or two for his punishment so be it, they can also choose prison time if they find it necessary. The whole point is to incorporate more common-sense-minded methods as opposed to the ol' fashioned 'protocol'. I don't know what we think we're getting by following traditions but it ain't there.

Here is what I propose for prevention although it is quite expensive...

You give every adult(over 18) $100 for each month they successfully complete without being convicted of ANY crime whatsoever, in order to save funds all crimes would disqualify you. So if you get a traffic ticket you're disqualified.(not sure if that's a 'crime' or not but you see what I'm saying) Also, anyone with any sort of criminal history is not qualified, even if you were a juvenile when you committed your crime.
nqyringmind
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 04:51 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
I disagree. Each one of the words you used has very vague meaning, in fact, I contend that even you know very little about what each of them is intended to mean and also that-which they mean are very similar if not exactly the same.

You're welcome to disagree. The dictionary doesn't.

Quote:
My question was about the original intentions behind the introduction of law as well as continuing to practice it.

Like I said, your question was about intention.

Quote:
Your answers didn't address anything as you gave 3 words which all basically mean the same thing. I'm not condemning you here, I know what you're saying. Law does give a sense of structure, control, power and also predictability. I may be giving your answers a bit more credit than they were worth as you were only able to bark out 4 words.


Moot, contradictory and self aggrandizing

Quote:
Not necessarily. It might make everyone feel a little bit safer but it isn't necessarily so. It wouldn't take a wild stretch of imagination to think that just because someone did something once has no impact on what they will do in the future. Also, the point is to prevent the crime before it ever takes place, this way we're not left with only being able to 'grasp' at he 2-second good-feeling of getting revenge on someone in order to feel 'safe'.


Perhaps this is why you are having such a hard time with this question..you seem angry. You're all over the place
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 05:26 pm
@nqyringmind,
I wasn't going to do this, but since you mentioned the dictionary...

Order

1.an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate.
2.a command of a court or judge.
3.a command or notice issued by a military organization or a military commander to troops, sailors, etc.
4.the disposition of things following one after another, as in space or time; succession or sequence: The names were listed in alphabetical order.

Regulation

1.a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
2.the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

Structure

1.mode of building, construction, or organization; arrangement of parts, elements, or constituents: a pyramidal structure.
2.something built or constructed, as a building, bridge, or dam.

Notice right away that there are three(3) descriptions above, which are each listed under different words, that are identical. Let's take another look at it, but this time more closely:

Order

1.an authoritative direction or instruction; command; mandate.
2.a command of a court or judge.
3.a command or notice issued by a military organization or a military commander to troops, sailors, etc.
4.the disposition of things following one after another, as in space or time; succession or sequence: The names were listed in alphabetical order.

Regulation

1.a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
2.the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

Structure

1.anything composed of parts arranged together in some way; an organization.
2.something built or constructed, as a building, bridge, or dam.

The only one you may be able to get away with here is 'structure', but that is something that simply comes after regulating so it's hardly worth mentioning. Plus it's difficult and iffy to go off of the dictionary, notice how they use the word 'regulate' to define 'regulation'(LOL)

But you will see if you read the above definitions that all three(3) of those words are very interchangeable and are at best vague.

Quote:
Like I said, your question was about intention.


Right, and you never answered it, all you've done was barked out the word 'structure' and prefaced it with a backup(dictionary)

Quote:
Moot, contradictory and self aggrandizing


What, did you take a whole 5 seconds to come up with this response? Come on! Even you don't know what you're talking about here. Let's go back to your friend, the dictionary:

Aggrandize

1.to widen in scope; increase in size or intensity; enlarge; extend.
2.to make great or greater in power, wealth, rank, or honor.
3.to make (something) appear greater.

So, to you, everything in the paragraph above where you put "Moot, contradictory and self aggrandizing" you were trying to indicate to me that I made a large paragraph? Or that it has great power!? Gee, thanks! You are quite the charmer! LOL

Quote:
Perhaps this is why you are having such a hard time with this question..you seem angry. You're all over the place


I have to challenge whether or not you(or anyone else) have the ability to 'sense' anger through your computer screen. Unless I was writing in all caps, or personally attacking you, which I am not.
nqyringmind
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 06:14 pm
@JPLosman0711,
I KNEW it was you!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlk-Xhwj7fTD9a57RuvzB0VAxtfLUE9jyOaUJwZ6UgJ6_qOJx3cg
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 06:24 pm
@nqyringmind,
You've lost me.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 08:39 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
Well, clearly those ways are not working.

This has nothing to do with your original assertion, which was :

Quote:
To me, the overall prevention of crime should take priority over the mere punishing of crimes which have already taken place. We have, regarding law, gone too far in the direction of crime-punishment and not far enough in its prevention.


Giving you so many examples that are aimed at preventing crime obviously shows your original statement to be unfounded.

I would also point out that the biggest costing system aimed at reducing crime is the Welfare system, and if it exists, the public housing system

-----------------------------------------------------------------

That you claim all these systems aren't working has no foundation in reality. You have shown no data to compare it to if these things weren't in place (and there is likely no useful data of such). I'm guessing all you have is an emotional 'feeling' attached to what you are saying. Yet I have no doubt that all that without (all) these systems, crime would exist at a much higher level (for very obvious reasons, with very foreseeable consequences)

Quote:
You give every adult(over 18) $100 for each month they successfully complete without being convicted of ANY crime whatsoever, in order to save funds all crimes would disqualify you. So if you get a traffic ticket you're disqualified.(not sure if that's a 'crime' or not but you see what I'm saying) Also, anyone with any sort of criminal history is not qualified, even if you were a juvenile when you committed your crime.

Incredibly simplistic.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 08:45 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
Giving you so many examples that are aimed at preventing crime obviously shows your original statement to be unfounded.

I would also point out that the biggest costing system aimed at reducing crime is the Welfare system, and if it exists, the public housing system


Most of the methods you have mentioned are in place for those who have already committed crimes, I'm talking about possibly creating a way which will reduce it before it gets to that point.

Quote:
Incredibly simplistic.


I don't know what to take from what you've said here but surely you have more thoughts about what I have put forward than that.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 09:00 pm
@JPLosman0711,
Quote:
Most of the methods you have mentioned are in place for those who have already committed crimes, I'm talking about possibly creating a way which will reduce it before it gets to that point.
That's fine. What I was pointing out is that was not what your original assertion was.

Quote:
I don't know what to take from what you've said here but surely you have more thoughts about what I have put forward than that.
Absolutely. But it seems so large a topic that it isn't worth it to me to go into.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jun, 2012 09:04 pm
@vikorr,
Fair enough.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jun, 2012 02:50 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
That you claim all these systems aren't working has no foundation in reality. You have shown no data to compare it to if these things weren't in place (and there is likely no useful data of such).


Absence of proof is not proof of absence either...as long as crime rates do not decrease while measures are been taken I would very much agree they are generally failing or doing poorly...game theory may be a good approach to the problem indeed although his "simplistic" approach might not be perfect I think his intuition is right in the face of hitting oil...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A Question About Law
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 12:39:37