jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (17 posts)

Enforcing Bad Laws

  1. ptosis profile image78
    ptosisposted 11 days ago

    The Fallacy of "Enforcement First" is that "only following orders", aka the Nuremberg defense,  cannot be used to lesson punishment for knowingly complying with an  'blatantly illegal order'.

    “Bad laws are the worst form of tyranny.”  - Edmund Burke 1775

    Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist philosophical view and rules may never be broken. Like any absolutist view does not take into account that reality occasionally presents situations where breaking a rule results in the greater good. For example, the strong reductionist rule that murder is bad is countered by the exceptional example of murder is not bad if performed in self-defense or the defense of others. This result of practical application is reflected in what John Stuart Mill called Weak Rule Utilitarianism. - https://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/16/w … bad-law-2/


    Arrested protesters put in bare dog-kennel Gitmo cages & a number written on arm for ID ala concentration camp style.
    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13291131.jpg
    Mekasi Camp-Horinek with numbered arm

    Amnesty International USA is now present at the Standing Rock Dakota pipeline protest to monitor the degree of force used in law enforcement.

    "Where a small minority tries to turn a peaceful assembly into a violent one, law enforcement officials should protect the peaceful protesters and not use the violent acts of a few as a pretext to restrict or impede the exercise of the rights of a majority," - AI's letter to Sheriff Kirchmeier

    UN Special Rapporteur Victoria Tauli-Corpus press release issued by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR):

       “The tribe was denied access to information and excluded from consultations at the planning stage of the project and environmental assessments failed to disclose the presence and proximity of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

        “The United States should, in accordance with its commitment to implement the Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous Peoples, consult with the affected communities in good faith and ensure their free, and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands, particularly in connection with extractive resource industries.

        “I urge the United States Government to undertake a thorough review of its compliance with international standards regarding the obligation to consult with indigenous peoples and obtain their free and informed consent. The statutory framework should be amended to include provisions to that effect and it is important that the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Advisory Council on Historic Preservation participate in the review of legislation.”



    If want to heal the deep division of the country then don't enforce bad law.  from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/5-reas … nt-safety/

    Dear Cop: “Enforcing the law” is not automatically legitimate or moral. The most vicious tyrannies in history (under Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc.) legalized their oppressions, which were then committed “law enforcers.” Historically speaking, far more injustice and murder has been committed in the name of “law” than has been committed in spite of the law. And those who directly perpetrated evil have often used the excuse that they were just doing as they were told, just following orders, just doing their job.

    The majority of U.S. “law enforcers” are no different, enforcing whatever decrees the politicians may enact, no matter how arbitrary or ridiculous they might be, and then trying to excuse their behavior using the classic cop-out, “Hey, I don’t make the law, I just enforce it.” You may have even used that one yourself. Just be aware that when you say that, you are essentially admitting that whatever the politicians tell you to inflict upon your fellow man, you will, without question. And that makes you the primary threat to humanity."


    From https://leb.fbi.gov/2011/october/focus- … nforcement
    If officers receive positive reinforcement after they perform certain actions, even illegal ones, they likely will behave similarly in the future despite organizational policies or prohibitions. {John R. Anderson, Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000).}

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 11 days ago in reply to this

      Are you suggestion that the cop on the beat make his personal determination of right and wrong in a law?  And then enforce only those that they find "right" in their own minds?  That the legislature be set aside in favor of a cop's opinion?  That the courts not be used - that only a cop's opinion is the final and only determination?

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 10 days ago in reply to this

        Is the law really that black and white on a large percentage of the issues? I don't think so. Discretion, compassion and the desire to look at all sides of an issue help immeasurably. Many, many calls for police assistance need not culminate in an arrest, or worse. A bullying attitude, reinforced by those above the beat cop, can eventually result in dire (and easily avoided) consequences.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 10 days ago in reply to this

          But that isn't the subject here: it is that some laws are "bad" (in the opinion of the OP) and cops should thus refuse to enforce those laws.  There is certainly a place for a cop being lenient at times: there is zero place for a cop to make the call that because he (or the OP) thinks it is a bad law then it will never be enforced.

          1. ptosis profile image78
            ptosisposted 9 days ago in reply to this

            Wilderness is being willfully ignorant. I never said that the cop refuse orders. Wow.  Get a new pair of glasses.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 9 days ago in reply to this

              The alternative is that all laws be enforced neutrally: that all persons are subject to all laws all the time.  Which you feel is wrong.  Or can you explain the difference between not enforcing the law and not obeying orders, when the general order is to enforce the law?

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                There are a lot of laws on the books that are not enforced.  For many years any veterinarian taking drugs to a farm was breaking the law, states that legalized marijuana are encouraging their citizen to break the Federal law, in several states homosexual sex is still illegal as are some kind of heterosexual intercourse.  Even the justice system is capable of showing a little common sense occasionally when the law is not reasonably enforceable.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                  There certainly are.  Hundreds.  Thousands.  Tens of thousands for all I know.

                  But that is no reason to blame cops for enforcing laws that the OP doesn't think should be enforced...in this specific instance.  Which was the point of this thread.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                    If this instance share features with the other instances, then there is a case to suggest non-enforcement is reasonable. e.g. that the law is not reasonable, infringes rights of certain groups of people, is counter to the ruling or another self-governing population, or is counter to the greater good.  All seem to be arguable here.

      2. ptosis profile image78
        ptosisposted 9 days ago in reply to this

        No. I did not suggest that.  You said that now in order to hijack my post.  Troll

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

          Baloney.  The whole point is that Dakota protesters be allowed to stay because they resisted arrest.  Because you don't want the cops enforcing laws against trespassing, destruction of private property, destruction of public property, blockage of public roads, threatening and attacking cops, workers and security, etc.

  2. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 9 days ago

    America has grown fatigued with the professional protester !  That lifestyle  and activism takes away from the cause and the genuinity  of all causes .  When the world watches the ignorance of  these fools in the streets  ,on the rez or on  the sea , a collective sigh resounds across the airwaves .

    Stick a camera in a activists face  and watch the ego-centrism of moron mentality.

    Enforce these protest - gathering  laws -no matter what !

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 days ago

    It is important to make appropriate laws.
    Laws should be created in the interest of justice, in the first place. Are some laws unenforcable? un fair? these types of laws should not be created and we need to be careful in a proactive way.
    The boundaries created by The Law should DEFINE freedoms and rights.

    1. ptosis profile image78
      ptosisposted 8 days ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately, there are poorly crafted laws.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 8 days ago in reply to this

        The purpose of laws is for the protection of freedoms and rights for all. Can you provide examples of bad laws which should not have been made because they are unnecessarily tyrannic, punitive or prejudiced?

        1. ptosis profile image78
          ptosisposted 8 days ago in reply to this

          The Patriot Act,  the executive branch keeps secret how they are interpreting the law. Secret law has no place in a democracy.

          There are entire websites dedicated to stupid laws here's one from 2013 from where else, Florida of course! A poorly worded law enacted “in a frenzy fueled by distorted judgement in the wake of a scandal that it outlawed "any computer or device connected to the Internet" - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 … 61701.html

          Just because you make a law that states that lamb has 5 legs doesn't make the tail a leg. You know those beach folding chairs with the little canopy to shade from the sun? Honolulu law states that is a tent structure and illegal. Everyone must be treated equally under the law, however many laws are just for the homeless.

          http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13294631.jpg

          Discriminatory law enforcement and prosecutorial practices, disparities in sentencing, mandatory minimum penalties, juvenile "justice", voter ID deny voting rights to those without a photo ID. Why is it hard to get a photo ID? Need a photo ID to get a photo ID, SS no longer accepts certified Birth certificates after 911.


          A bad law is one proposed from fake news:
          "Coler's company, Disinfomedia said he was amazed at how quickly fake news could spread and how easily people believe it. He wrote one fake story for NationalReport.net about how customers in Colorado marijuana shops were using food stamps to buy pot.

          "What that turned into was a state representative in the House in Colorado proposing actual legislation to prevent people from using their food stamps to buy marijuana based on something that had just never happened," Coler says." - http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechcons … he-suburbs


          That's just today in USA, I'm sure you can come up with many historical examples such as the Apartheid legislation in SA & Nazi Anti-Jewish Laws.





          http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13294668.jpg

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

            No argument from me - there are thousands of really bad laws out there. 

            But the solution isn't to enforce them selectively - it's to get rid of them.  Leaving them on the books simply gives a way to abuse the system.

 
working