3 ms·
>it's a central example of a law that shouldn't exist when the role of criminal law is to save innocent people from bad people and not idiots from themselves.
by Hamuko 7y ago
>it's a central example of a law that shouldn't exist when the role of criminal law is to save innocent people from bad people and not idiots from themselves.
Do these people also disagree with drinking/smoking age laws?
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoSome of them do. Some argue that that's different because then it is someone bad (tobacco company) hurting someone innocent (child who doesn't know any better).
- Reelin 7y agoAdding to that, age laws are also a far more complicated topic than it might seem at first glance. Young people will generally lack education and experience, while chronic exposure to some chemicals can have drastic effects on physical development. Worse, developmental issues appear to overlap extensively with the previously mentioned "bad people" that criminal law is hypothetically supposed to protect us from. Personal liberties aside, there would be significant consequences to society if we couldn't reliably produce at least marginally functional and healthy adults. Related to that, in many countries there seems to be some expectation of the government looking out for younger people to at least a limited extent. Compulsory education and foster care come to mind among other things. I guess what I'm getting at is that raising healthy children seems to be much closer to a serious public health threat (ex pandemic) than to engaging in a risky activity (ex white water kayaking) when placed on a continuum.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoSmoking, drinking and driving without seatbelts all cause health risks to third parties (in form of second-harm smoking, crime&domestic violence, and bodies flying around the vehicle during an accident, respectively). I think it would be better to discuss the "protecting idiots from themselves" angle using activities that harm only the people engaging in them.