3 ms·
Yep, sorry, you're naive. :) The law != common sense. If a law is on the books, it may be applied broadly, even to Timmy and Mark. That's why it's important to
by declan 12y ago
Yep, sorry, you're naive. :) The law != common sense. If a law is on the books, it may be applied broadly, even to Timmy and Mark. That's why it's important to ensure the laws are sensible before they're enacted.
Here's one example. Let's say there's a 16-year old girl and a 17-year old boy who are in a consensual dating relationship and, you know, take some racy photos of one other. The photos were taken consensually, not shared with anyone else, and stored only on their own computers/accounts. And let's say they're living in Florida and under state law, they're legally old enough to have sex with each other.
It would be fear-mongering to expect that these two happy teenagers would ever be prosecuted and convicted on "child pornography" charges, right? Except they were. And, as I wrote in 2007, a Florida appeals court upheld their criminal conviction:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6157857.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
Yes, sorry, Timmy and Mark, sometimes a judge and jury will let it go that far. Sometimes they will "literally lock up your children..."
- diminoten 12y agoAh, but that plays into the US's very strange views on sex. It feels like an exception, rather than the general rule.
- raquo 12y agoUS has strange views on a lot of things, including the one in question – privacy.
- diminoten 12y agoI don't think the US's views on sex and the US's views on privacy are quite comparable, given the 500 year history that comes with our weird prudishness.
- raquo 12y agoYour point, as I understood it, was that jailing children for children pornography is an exception from normal routine because US has strange views on sex. My point is that US views on privacy ("nothing to hide") are also strange (relative to my viewpoint), so that will also be an "exception", and you shouldn't be surprised when these strange views will be applied in the courtroom.
- diminoten 12y agoI don't think sex and privacy come anywhere near each other, in terms of deviation from the global norm. The US doesn't have any particularly deviant view on privacy from the rest of the world, unlike sex.
- sitkack 12y agoYes, but... the law is not rational. It will execute the code you give it.
- mortenjorck 12y agoIt is JIT-compiled though, and courts will throw compiler errors from time to time.
- seanflyon 12y agoBut those jury nullification errors are non-deterministic, so you can't rely on them.
- diminoten 12y agoA large part of the US judicial system relies on people to take laws and find rational and reasonable interpretations.
- gear54rus 12y agoExactly. This is precisely the point. It will interpret and execute whatever code is thrown at it. The problem is that the code is NOT DETERMINISTIC (or non-deterministic, whatever). It can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. This and the fact that 'compiled' code is sometimes altered by applying some money-based side effects gives us some pretty ridiculous results. Correct me if I'm wrong but there's no easy way to fix this problem.
- Roboprog 12y agoDon't think of it as corruption, think of it as aspect oriented programming! BEFORE: go to jail APPLY: expensive lawyer, public pressure
- tombrossman 12y agoLet's not overlook the fact that the law doesn't actually have to be applied, it can be a bargaining chip. The prosecution mentality is to 'throw the book' at defendants and then the defendant has to try to negotiate down from that starting point. Firearms might be a good analogy here. You don't need to actually shoot a robber for your firearm to be effective. The mere presence of it is often enough to scare them off.
- raquo 12y agoAnd how is this "everyone can be in prison if we want it" attitude any good? That's a huge enabler of selective enforcement and limitless corruption.
- hadoukenio 12y ago> That's a huge enabler of selective enforcement and limitless corruption I don't think anyone will argue with you on that one.
- chiph 12y agoRight. We go from a nation of laws, to a nation of people that can break the law .. if you're well-connected. Which has a strong resemblance to the situation commonly found in what was formerly called banana republics.