6 ms·

>they are criminals They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior. Why sh

>they are criminals They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior. Why should they have to "make a choice" and make "better decisions" when they don't believe what they've done is wrong?

thejrk 12y ago
It doesn't matter if you disagree or not, it IS illegal.
- jjbiotech 12y ago
  Here's a hypothetical situation that will give you some perspective to consider: Eating unhealthy food with a high fat and sugar content in your country is highly illegal. In this hypothetical country you live in, the offence of eating unhealthy food is a felony and punishable by time in prison. This law makes sense: It's for the good of the people. It's a victimless crime, but the war on unhealthy food needs to be enforced or else society will become so fat the entire system will collapse. People will be gorging themselves on big macs instead of showing up for work. Think about the children! The kids will get so fat they'll be unable to find a partner, and won't be able to get a job. People will become addicted to unhealthy food and permanently damage their bodies, causing them to die early. We need to ban unhealthy food, and throw all of the law breakers in prison like they deserve. It doesn't matter if you disagree or not, it IS illegal.
  - lmm 12y ago
    Damn straight. Where do I sign up?
    - icebraining 12y ago
      You can't, that's illegal.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  Legally, in some places homosexuality is punished by death. The law is the law, so should they just shut up and be executed?
  - ianstallings 12y ago
    That doesn't apply here and you know it. This is the US justice system and I get tired of the red herring bullshit.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      The US law where homosexuals were locked in cages less than 15 years ago, where their are still homosexuals in cages and under other punishments for actions that would have been legal if they had been heterosexuals (one example a child molester in Georgia who would have been protected under Romeo and Juliet laws had the young party been a girl instead of a boy). We still have a justice system where owning certain plants can get you years if not decades locked in a cage. If you smell any BS around here, I'd think the natural source would be the legal system.
      - ianstallings 12y ago
        Listen we are talking about two different things and that's my point. I don't care about moral judgements. This is about reality - if there is a law on the books, right or wrong, and you knowingly break that law, will you be surprised when law enforcement comes after you? This is about personal responsibility. You make a decision and you pay the consequences, right or wrong.
kohanz 12y ago
... and how well does a society function if everyone gets to decide for themselves what rules they follow?
- moskie 12y ago
  You're describing reality. When was the last time you jay walked?
  - lmm 12y ago
    Not a crime where I live. Some places run on civil law rather than the ad-hoc patchwork of common law.
  - lurkinggrue 12y ago
    I haven't in decades. But then I live in Southern California and nobody walks here.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  As long as interactions between people are governed by the consent of all parties rather than unilaterally by the rules of one: pretty darn well. If what you're doing only affects you, only you ought to have jurisdiction.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Considering that police and normal people do this every single day, I'd say pretty well.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  How does a society function when only a few make the rules for the many? http://gawker.com/study-the-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-1563363760 http://gawker.com/study-the-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-1563363760
dogecoinbase 12y ago
They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior. They should probably still accept the reality of the punishment, at least until the law is modified. Disobeying a law for moral reasons is only the first half of civil disobedience.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  That's a view I would see nothing more than government propaganda. 'If you don't like the law, then you should break it and peacefully accept any punishments.' Should we tell homosexuals in some areas of the world that they should go ahead and draft up their wills and turn themselves to be executed because they should accept their punishment for their crime?
  - nmyk 12y ago
    You seem to be assuming the government wants people to break its laws, so it gets to punish people. It costs the government money to put people in prison; not only the cost of their food, shelter, supervision, etc. but also the cost of removing a taxpayer from the workforce. Furthermore, a democratically elected government that is increasingly imprisoning more and more of its people is not likely to remain popular. It is in the government's best interest to only enforce laws that the majority of people are happy to obey. Civil disobedience is a technique that protesters who think a law is unjust use to take advantage of this interest. By deliberately disobeying the unjust law and accepting the punishment for it, they help put pressure on legislators to change it. The government prefers a situation in which no laws are ever broken--that's why it makes such an extensive effort to incentivize citizens not to break them--but in the case where enough people feel it is in their best interest to break the law even with the punishment that comes with doing so, as people who use civil disobedience do, then the law must change if it is to reflect the will of the people. The example you gave re: homosexuals/death penalty is extreme, but follows the same principles, as long as that government is democratically elected. Most democracies don't get to the point where they're throwing the death penalty around willy-nilly though, thank God.
paulhauggis 12y ago
Bernie Madoff didn't think he was doing anything wrong either. Why should he have to make a choice? The only reason you are making this comment is because you don't believe drugs (and drug dealing) should be illegal.
- icebraining 12y ago
  There's nothing incoherent in only supporting people who commit crimes you believe shouldn't be crimes. In fact, as others have pointed out, doing so is even legally recognized in the form of jury nullification.
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  Bernie Madoff harmed non-consenting individuals.
- aunty_helen 12y ago
  Rosa Parks didn't think she was doing anything wrong either. Why should she have to make a choice? The only reason you are making this comment is because you believe drugs (and drug dealing) should be illegal. Or is it different because fast forward to today, looking back those laws were obviously wrong?
- Crito 12y ago
  > "Bernie Madoff didn't think he was doing anything wrong either." Do you have a source for that? I would have expected that he knew that what he was doing was wrong, but did not care because he was greedy. Disagreeing with a law and disregarding the law are two separate concepts. People often do one without doing the other. His apology that he delivered before sentencing suggests that he knew it was wrong. Of course it would be incredibly foolish to take such an apology at face value, but it would be interesting if there are any statements made by him at other times that contradict this.
- malka 12y ago
  Madoff stole people money. These guy entered a mutually approved transaction between adults, where both side are usually happy with the outcome.

thejrk 12y ago

It doesn't matter if you disagree or not, it IS illegal.

jjbiotech 12y ago
Here's a hypothetical situation that will give you some perspective to consider: Eating unhealthy food with a high fat and sugar content in your country is highly illegal. In this hypothetical country you live in, the offence of eating unhealthy food is a felony and punishable by time in prison. This law makes sense: It's for the good of the people. It's a victimless crime, but the war on unhealthy food needs to be enforced or else society will become so fat the entire system will collapse. People will be gorging themselves on big macs instead of showing up for work. Think about the children! The kids will get so fat they'll be unable to find a partner, and won't be able to get a job. People will become addicted to unhealthy food and permanently damage their bodies, causing them to die early. We need to ban unhealthy food, and throw all of the law breakers in prison like they deserve. It doesn't matter if you disagree or not, it IS illegal.
- lmm 12y ago
  Damn straight. Where do I sign up?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    You can't, that's illegal.
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
Legally, in some places homosexuality is punished by death. The law is the law, so should they just shut up and be executed?
- ianstallings 12y ago
  That doesn't apply here and you know it. This is the US justice system and I get tired of the red herring bullshit.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    The US law where homosexuals were locked in cages less than 15 years ago, where their are still homosexuals in cages and under other punishments for actions that would have been legal if they had been heterosexuals (one example a child molester in Georgia who would have been protected under Romeo and Juliet laws had the young party been a girl instead of a boy). We still have a justice system where owning certain plants can get you years if not decades locked in a cage. If you smell any BS around here, I'd think the natural source would be the legal system.
    - ianstallings 12y ago
      Listen we are talking about two different things and that's my point. I don't care about moral judgements. This is about reality - if there is a law on the books, right or wrong, and you knowingly break that law, will you be surprised when law enforcement comes after you? This is about personal responsibility. You make a decision and you pay the consequences, right or wrong.

kohanz 12y ago

... and how well does a society function if everyone gets to decide for themselves what rules they follow?

moskie 12y ago
You're describing reality. When was the last time you jay walked?
- lmm 12y ago
  Not a crime where I live. Some places run on civil law rather than the ad-hoc patchwork of common law.
- lurkinggrue 12y ago
  I haven't in decades. But then I live in Southern California and nobody walks here.
JoshTriplett 12y ago
As long as interactions between people are governed by the consent of all parties rather than unilaterally by the rules of one: pretty darn well. If what you're doing only affects you, only you ought to have jurisdiction.
Karunamon 12y ago
Considering that police and normal people do this every single day, I'd say pretty well.
spacemanmatt 12y ago
How does a society function when only a few make the rules for the many? http://gawker.com/study-the-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-1563363760 http://gawker.com/study-the-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-1563363760

dogecoinbase 12y ago

They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior. They should probably still accept the reality of the punishment, at least until the law is modified. Disobeying a law for moral reasons is only the first half of civil disobedience.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
That's a view I would see nothing more than government propaganda. 'If you don't like the law, then you should break it and peacefully accept any punishments.' Should we tell homosexuals in some areas of the world that they should go ahead and draft up their wills and turn themselves to be executed because they should accept their punishment for their crime?
- nmyk 12y ago
  You seem to be assuming the government wants people to break its laws, so it gets to punish people. It costs the government money to put people in prison; not only the cost of their food, shelter, supervision, etc. but also the cost of removing a taxpayer from the workforce. Furthermore, a democratically elected government that is increasingly imprisoning more and more of its people is not likely to remain popular. It is in the government's best interest to only enforce laws that the majority of people are happy to obey. Civil disobedience is a technique that protesters who think a law is unjust use to take advantage of this interest. By deliberately disobeying the unjust law and accepting the punishment for it, they help put pressure on legislators to change it. The government prefers a situation in which no laws are ever broken--that's why it makes such an extensive effort to incentivize citizens not to break them--but in the case where enough people feel it is in their best interest to break the law even with the punishment that comes with doing so, as people who use civil disobedience do, then the law must change if it is to reflect the will of the people. The example you gave re: homosexuals/death penalty is extreme, but follows the same principles, as long as that government is democratically elected. Most democracies don't get to the point where they're throwing the death penalty around willy-nilly though, thank God.

paulhauggis 12y ago

Bernie Madoff didn't think he was doing anything wrong either. Why should he have to make a choice? The only reason you are making this comment is because you don't believe drugs (and drug dealing) should be illegal.

icebraining 12y ago
There's nothing incoherent in only supporting people who commit crimes you believe shouldn't be crimes. In fact, as others have pointed out, doing so is even legally recognized in the form of jury nullification.
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
Bernie Madoff harmed non-consenting individuals.
aunty_helen 12y ago
Rosa Parks didn't think she was doing anything wrong either. Why should she have to make a choice? The only reason you are making this comment is because you believe drugs (and drug dealing) should be illegal. Or is it different because fast forward to today, looking back those laws were obviously wrong?
Crito 12y ago
> "Bernie Madoff didn't think he was doing anything wrong either." Do you have a source for that? I would have expected that he knew that what he was doing was wrong, but did not care because he was greedy. Disagreeing with a law and disregarding the law are two separate concepts. People often do one without doing the other. His apology that he delivered before sentencing suggests that he knew it was wrong. Of course it would be incredibly foolish to take such an apology at face value, but it would be interesting if there are any statements made by him at other times that contradict this.
malka 12y ago
Madoff stole people money. These guy entered a mutually approved transaction between adults, where both side are usually happy with the outcome.