5 ms·
Is there a way to enforce laws that doesn't require violence or the threat of it?
by jamesaguilar 14y ago
Is there a way to enforce laws that doesn't require violence or the threat of it?
- baddox 14y agoNo, which is why I don't like laws against non-violent actions.
- canttestthis 14y agoFraud, blackmail, libel, DUI (without injuring anyone) are all non-violent crimes and you'd rather they be legalized?
- rayiner 14y agoThere is no point probing his silly poorly thought out world view.
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoFraud and blackmail insure people obviously. Libel, I'm not sure, but I'm American so we have no such laws anyways. DUI is interesting: its like randomly shooting into a crowd of people and just missing to hit someone.
- anigbrowl 14y agoWe do have laws against libel, you just don't know about them. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoYes, but its only civil law, not criminal. I had the impression that we were just talking about criminal law.
- jamesaguilar 14y agoWhy would you have that impression? The threat of violence is also the means of enforcement for civil law. If you don't comply with judicial orders, eventually the sheriff will come by and force you to.
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoIANAL but that is not true; they can only seize your property, and even then civil bankruptcy is still an option. You do not go to jail for violating a civil judgement.
- jamesaguilar 14y agoSeizing property is violent taking.
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoThat is an ideological libertarian viewpoint, where even taxes are considered as violence. Not useful. There is a difference between going to jail for 4 years and just going bankrupt. The first you lose your freedom, the second you just lose your property but can at least keep living. Many people would never recover mentally from being incarcerated for 4 years, but many can recover from bankruptcy.
- anigbrowl 14y agoYou're right, I only gave a half-answer. We do have lws against sedition [1]. Having grown up around UK common law, I carelessly linked to libel instead - it's called 'seditious libel' over there. But that's probably not what you meant when you referred to libel. I'm sorry for the confusion and for not reading the link I posted more carefully. 1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385?quicktabs_8=1...
- D9u 14y ago
- baddox 14y agoI would rather those rules not be enforced by a government.
- jbigelow76 14y agoBernie Madoff would have loved to have you on his jury.
- _delirium 14y agoI don't much like him, and from my politics (generally left) I guess I'm supposed to be angry about the underprosecution of white-collar crime, but I don't see a great case for actually imprisoning him. I mostly take a view that imprisonment is a last resort to physically restrain people from harming society further, with alternatives being preferable, if at all possible. Is imprisonment really the last option available in Madoff's case? I think just banning him from investment-related jobs and imposing some kind of probationary oversight would be sufficient to keep him from reoffending. In addition, of course, to confiscating his wealth, plus perhaps taking some portion of his future earnings as restitution.
- jbigelow76 14y ago>"I think just banning him from investment-related jobs and imposing some kind of probationary oversight would be sufficient to keep him from reoffending." Would the ban guarantee he could never re-offend, or would it just limit the scale of any potential future fraud? Given the level of his past fraud and allegations of possible fraud going back as far as the 70s imprisonment doesn't sound inappropriate to me.
- pimentel 14y ago"confiscating his wealth" The problem is with the wealth he probably has hidden somewhere. If not in prison, he would still be living a very rich life. He wouldn't need any job.
- phaus 14y agoMadoff is the perfect example. Sure, on the surface his actions weren't violent, but I'd be surprised if someone didn't die as a result of his $60 billion theft. I'm not even talking about the suicides that probably occurred. Instead, imagine all of the people who lost everything and could no longer afford to take care of themselves properly.
- rayiner 14y agoWhy single out violence? That favors the cunning over the physically strong.
- jrockway 14y agoYes. Garnish his wages. Consider something like $10,000 over 10 years. Enough to notice, but it's not going to make a software engineer homeless. (I think that's too much in this case, but consider non-violent criminals in general.)
- Cieplak 14y agoAnd in this manner, he could still keep a job and perhaps add value to society. Sending him to prison is a net loss for everyone, because of the cost to society of keeping him locked in a cage, and the difficulty of him finding employment following the prison sentence, in which case he might continue to drain on society. Prisons should serve to prevent violent people from inflicting harm upon others, and not strictly as a method of punishment.
- jamesaguilar 14y agoTo be fair, this is a threat of violence against his employer if they do not comply. Also, another way to look at it is forced taking, which is also violent.
- jrockway 14y agoYes, but most employers err on the side of caution, reducing the likelihood of violence. There will never be no violence until every individual on Earth always acts in society's best interest without any persuasion whatsoever. I think we can all agree that's not going to happen ever, so in order to maintain order, we do need to threaten violence in the right circumstances.
- jamesaguilar 14y agoAgreed. Your rationale and mine align, but are in opposition to the person I originally responded to, who suggested a blanked prohibition on violent punishment against non-violent offenders.
- readme 14y ago1000 bucks a year as punishment? Why not just write him a traffic ticket. That's not nearly enough.