4 ms·
Exactly, and the reason for this is that we can't cover all possibilities with enough granularity for black and white to be close to reasonable. If it was ille
by rapind 14y ago
Exactly, and the reason for this is that we can't cover all possibilities with enough granularity for black and white to be close to reasonable.
If it was illegal to break a lock (black and white), then the guy who breaks a lock to steal your TV gets the same sentence as the guy who breaks his own lock because he forgot his keys, and the same as the guy who breaks a lock to get into a burning building to save a child, etc. Obviously this is ridiculous, but even so, how could we possibly cover all of the motivations for breaking a lock?
How could we cover all of the motivations for hiding your identity? How could it ever be black and white if we can't?
If we could, then the entire justice system could then be automated.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago>Obviously this is ridiculous, but even so, how could we possibly cover all of the motivations for breaking a lock? But here's the thing: That's why it isn't illegal to "break a lock." It's illegal to e.g. steal things. Because that's what we want to prohibit, not breaking locks, even if breaking locks is a thing mostly done by criminals who are trying to steal things.
- jack-r-abbit 14y agoI don't believe you have to actually steal anything to be guilty of "breaking and entering". http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/breaking-and-entering.html http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/breaking-and-enteri...
- AnthonyMouse 14y agoNeither are you guilty of "breaking and entering" if you break your own lock. And you might also notice that the penalty for breaking and entering is a lot lower than it is for e.g. grand larceny (or, for that matter, murder).
- jack-r-abbit 14y agoNeither of your points refute my point so I just agree and move on.
- rapind 14y agoYou're missing the point (intentionally or not, I can't say). So to take a bad analogy even further... I'm a lock troll. I like to go around breaking people's locks. I never steal anything, I just break locks because I'm a prick like that. This guy I know, Franky, broke a lock the other day in order to save a child from a burning building. How would you propose a black and white system handle this? Do I get to run around breaking locks with impunity, or are we going to punish Franky for the method of his good deed. I mean, the good deed's nice and all, but irrelevant to the matter at hand right?
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago1) You don't have a law against breaking locks. You have a law against willful destruction of other peoples' property, and locks are property. 2) You have an exception to such laws for exigent circumstances or implied consent. Here is the flaw in your argument: We don't have to nail everything down to nail part of something down. We don't have to define "exigent circumstances" mathematically or put the badge number of authorized fire marshals in the statute. That doesn't mean we can't do better than obscenely broad and vague nonsense like "unauthorized access to a computer." There is a reason we have laws more specific than "anyone who does anything bad shall be punished by a fine of up to one hundred trillion dollars or up to one thousand years in prison."
- erichocean 14y agoThere is a reason we have laws more specific than "anyone who does anything bad shall be punished by a fine of up to one hundred trillion dollars or up to one thousand years in prison." Damnit man! Don't give them ideas!
- rapind 14y agoMy point was never that we should be as vague as possible. My point was that you could never be specific enough to not require context. The mere possibility of exigent circumstances guarantees it. I don't think we're actually in disagreement. Maybe my analogy was just that badly thrown together?