How far do you want the Law to go? - The Chainlink2024-03-29T11:25:02Zhttps://thechainlink.org/forum/topics/how-far-do-you-want-the-law-to-go?commentId=2211490%3AComment%3A805190&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noIn Wisconsin, the Bike Fed wa…tag:thechainlink.org,2014-03-21:2211490:Comment:8049722014-03-21T21:44:24.781ZBarry Niel Stuarthttps://thechainlink.org/profile/BarryNielStuart
<p>In Wisconsin, the Bike Fed was trying to get a Vulnerable Road Users Law this session. Unfortunately the leaders of the Assembly and the Senate refused to bring it to the floor for an up-or-down vote. We're trying again next session. Maybe we'll get this law to the governor's desk where it will be signed.</p>
<p>In Wisconsin, the Bike Fed was trying to get a Vulnerable Road Users Law this session. Unfortunately the leaders of the Assembly and the Senate refused to bring it to the floor for an up-or-down vote. We're trying again next session. Maybe we'll get this law to the governor's desk where it will be signed.</p> Instant Karma never seems to…tag:thechainlink.org,2014-03-21:2211490:Comment:8051962014-03-21T20:13:19.654ZVildahttps://thechainlink.org/profile/Vilda
<p>Instant Karma never seems to work right? That's always the argument against it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A driver behaves badly but didn't kill us. We are SO ANGRY. We yell at them or break something off there car. We feel better, maybe, but did the outraged driver learn anything?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Most go for the "Who cares if they learned? I feel better." And that's fine. But it likely didn't solve anything here in reality.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And if they killed you they might just get away with it... So…</p>
<p>Instant Karma never seems to work right? That's always the argument against it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A driver behaves badly but didn't kill us. We are SO ANGRY. We yell at them or break something off there car. We feel better, maybe, but did the outraged driver learn anything?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Most go for the "Who cares if they learned? I feel better." And that's fine. But it likely didn't solve anything here in reality.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And if they killed you they might just get away with it... So do you take your pound of flesh when you can?</p> The balance between letting p…tag:thechainlink.org,2014-03-21:2211490:Comment:8051932014-03-21T20:03:06.035ZDavid Barishhttps://thechainlink.org/profile/DavidBarish
<p>The balance between letting people literally get away with murder and a lynch mob society that strings 'em up first and asks questions later is tough. Neither extreme makes sense. There will often be situations whee somebody is unhappy with an outcome. In general our society has been much less tolerant of driving while intoxicated. Impaired driving creates a greater risk that bad things will happen. However, most people still get home in one piece and then, foolishly, try again. I have been…</p>
<p>The balance between letting people literally get away with murder and a lynch mob society that strings 'em up first and asks questions later is tough. Neither extreme makes sense. There will often be situations whee somebody is unhappy with an outcome. In general our society has been much less tolerant of driving while intoxicated. Impaired driving creates a greater risk that bad things will happen. However, most people still get home in one piece and then, foolishly, try again. I have been thinking about the owner of the Indianapolis Colts. He was caught this week driving intoxicated. he also had a controlled substance in his vehicle. He did not hurt anybody. He was lucky. I gather from what I read, that he has been doing things like this for a while. He is now in rehab and will likely pay a lot of money, face some embarrassment, and doubtfully spend any time in the pokey. Would it be the same for you or I? Probably not. We don't have his resources. We also don't have his history of abuse (I am making an assumption here.) Had he run over his best friend or somebody on a bike, he may have been in a heap more trouble. Would he go to jail? Maybe yes, maybe no. However, the family of the hypothetical victim would have been compensated. would that bring back the hypothetical loved one? No. Then again, nothing short of a rift in the space time continuum could do that.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Getting back to the topic...We have explored these issues on this forum over the past year as drivers in our city have killed bikers. Its horrible for all involved. If somebody does a bad thing they should be punished. We want to see this happen. However, it does not bring back the biker. We don't need to draw and quarter the accused. We just don't want to see him/her driving around laughing and thinking that there is no repercussion for their act. We want other people to think twice before staggering into their car so it will not happen again (or to be realistic, happen as much again).</p> Outrage seems to come from tw…tag:thechainlink.org,2014-03-21:2211490:Comment:8051392014-03-21T19:49:48.557ZLisa Curciohttps://thechainlink.org/profile/LisaCurcio
<p>Outrage seems to come from two primary sources (to generalize a bit):</p>
<p>1) wanting retribution for the loss that resulted from the crime;</p>
<p>2) lack of knowledge of the facts.</p>
<p>Wanting retribution seems to be a normal reaction which logic sometimes tempers. Lack of knowledge of the facts can be overcome, but it takes some effort to learn facts, especially when the event is not one with which the outraged person is directly involved. In some situations, outrage is warranted,…</p>
<p>Outrage seems to come from two primary sources (to generalize a bit):</p>
<p>1) wanting retribution for the loss that resulted from the crime;</p>
<p>2) lack of knowledge of the facts.</p>
<p>Wanting retribution seems to be a normal reaction which logic sometimes tempers. Lack of knowledge of the facts can be overcome, but it takes some effort to learn facts, especially when the event is not one with which the outraged person is directly involved. In some situations, outrage is warranted, however, there are people who are content to sustain their outrage regardless of the facts. It is easier than coming to a reasoned conclusion. </p> It doesn't matter what I thin…tag:thechainlink.org,2014-03-21:2211490:Comment:8051912014-03-21T19:38:18.925ZDoug Hayneshttps://thechainlink.org/profile/DougHaynes
<p>It doesn't matter what I think; it matters what the people I vote for think.<br></br> <br></br> <cite>Vilda said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/how-far-do-you-want-the-law-to-go?page=1&commentId=2211490%3AComment%3A805190&x=1#2211490Comment804963"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Right Doug , so I'm asking what do YOU think the punishment for these violations should be?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Joe and Rich those are great ideas.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But…</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It doesn't matter what I think; it matters what the people I vote for think.<br/> <br/> <cite>Vilda said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/how-far-do-you-want-the-law-to-go?page=1&commentId=2211490%3AComment%3A805190&x=1#2211490Comment804963"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Right Doug , so I'm asking what do YOU think the punishment for these violations should be?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Joe and Rich those are great ideas.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But enforcement can't be enough either. There are X number of Police on the road and Y number of drivers. Y is 200 times greater than X. Too much turf and not enough men.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> This is exactly right Lisa.
…tag:thechainlink.org,2014-03-21:2211490:Comment:8051902014-03-21T19:28:47.511ZVildahttps://thechainlink.org/profile/Vilda
<p>This is exactly right Lisa.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Malice and intent are HUGE factors in how the cases play out. A first time offender was not likely intending to kill someone. They did not want to kill someone. And they won't again if we let them go.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If a repeat offender skates cause a witness did not appear in court we have a reason to be outraged. However we all usually jump to outrage first. If all the cases are SO ENFURIATING than, really, none of them are.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But…</p>
<p>This is exactly right Lisa.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Malice and intent are HUGE factors in how the cases play out. A first time offender was not likely intending to kill someone. They did not want to kill someone. And they won't again if we let them go.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If a repeat offender skates cause a witness did not appear in court we have a reason to be outraged. However we all usually jump to outrage first. If all the cases are SO ENFURIATING than, really, none of them are.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But even then what is the worth of the human that has made an error repeat or otherwise?<br/><br/><cite>Lisa Curcio 4.1 mi said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/how-far-do-you-want-the-law-to-go?page=1&commentId=2211490%3AComment%3A804963&x=1#2211490Comment804962"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>Just to continue the philosophic bent:</p>
<p>There are law review articles and theses written by sociologists that try to balance what are commonly thought to be the reasons for punishment for criminal acts. The components are deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution. Criminal justice systems place different values on the components. Within a criminal justice system the primary purpose of punishment will vary. At one end of the spectrum, our system incapacitates a criminal that is deemed to be a permanent danger to society. At the other, we seek restitution and/or rehabilitation of a criminal who is deemed to have made a mistake but is no danger at all to society. The devil, as OP points out, is in between.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> Right Doug , so I'm asking wh…tag:thechainlink.org,2014-03-21:2211490:Comment:8049632014-03-21T19:19:26.467ZVildahttps://thechainlink.org/profile/Vilda
<p>Right Doug , so I'm asking what do YOU think the punishment for these violations should be?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Joe and Rich those are great ideas.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But enforcement can't be enough either. There are X number of Police on the road and Y number of drivers. Y is 200 times greater than X. Too much turf and not enough men.</p>
<p>Right Doug , so I'm asking what do YOU think the punishment for these violations should be?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Joe and Rich those are great ideas.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But enforcement can't be enough either. There are X number of Police on the road and Y number of drivers. Y is 200 times greater than X. Too much turf and not enough men.</p> Just to continue the philosop…tag:thechainlink.org,2014-03-21:2211490:Comment:8049622014-03-21T19:16:19.714ZLisa Curciohttps://thechainlink.org/profile/LisaCurcio
<p>Just to continue the philosophic bent:</p>
<p>There are law review articles and theses written by sociologists that try to balance what are commonly thought to be the reasons for punishment for criminal acts. The components are deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution. Criminal justice systems place different values on the components. Within a criminal justice system the primary purpose of punishment will vary. At one end of the spectrum, our system…</p>
<p>Just to continue the philosophic bent:</p>
<p>There are law review articles and theses written by sociologists that try to balance what are commonly thought to be the reasons for punishment for criminal acts. The components are deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution. Criminal justice systems place different values on the components. Within a criminal justice system the primary purpose of punishment will vary. At one end of the spectrum, our system incapacitates a criminal that is deemed to be a permanent danger to society. At the other, we seek restitution and/or rehabilitation of a criminal who is deemed to have made a mistake but is no danger at all to society. The devil, as OP points out, is in between.</p> Michelle, bias is fine. We ar…tag:thechainlink.org,2014-03-21:2211490:Comment:8050382014-03-21T19:13:08.507ZVildahttps://thechainlink.org/profile/Vilda
<p>Michelle, bias is fine. We are all biased as individuals. But that's kinda the exercise. The above story is why I have not sat on a jury the 2 times I was called for drunk driving cases. I know that I can't look past my own bias and need to be excused. That's so the human being charged gets a fair trial.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The bias I carry asks for a very different outcome than the law should.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I like the idea of community service. It should be attached to everything. Taking away…</p>
<p>Michelle, bias is fine. We are all biased as individuals. But that's kinda the exercise. The above story is why I have not sat on a jury the 2 times I was called for drunk driving cases. I know that I can't look past my own bias and need to be excused. That's so the human being charged gets a fair trial.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The bias I carry asks for a very different outcome than the law should.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I like the idea of community service. It should be attached to everything. Taking away someone's license is hard cause then you can cause "hardship" and people treat driving like a right. An electronic bracelet that disables cars you sit it? Who's an inventor on here?</p> First off feelings and religi…tag:thechainlink.org,2014-03-21:2211490:Comment:8050352014-03-21T19:09:05.781ZDoug Hayneshttps://thechainlink.org/profile/DougHaynes
<p>First off feelings and religion have no place in crime and punishment.</p>
<p>How, and for how long, people should be punished should have nothing to do with feelings or it becomes impossible to have a fair and even judicial system. Should a person be punished less if they take the life of somebody universally regarded as an asshole? Or punished more because they took the life of somebody YOU care about vs. the life of somebody you care nothing about?</p>
<p></p>
<p>The law is what he law…</p>
<p>First off feelings and religion have no place in crime and punishment.</p>
<p>How, and for how long, people should be punished should have nothing to do with feelings or it becomes impossible to have a fair and even judicial system. Should a person be punished less if they take the life of somebody universally regarded as an asshole? Or punished more because they took the life of somebody YOU care about vs. the life of somebody you care nothing about?</p>
<p></p>
<p>The law is what he law is and lawyers are always going to try and work the system to get the person they represent the absolute minimum punishment the law allows. It's the rights of the accused to get as little punishment as the law prescribes should a judge and jury find so and the job of their attorney to work to get them those minimums. When these decisions are made the judge, who we elect, weighs the crime, the defendants history, mitigating circumstances and other factors to determine the judgement they feel is fair. </p>
<p></p>
<p>That is how the system works and if you are unhappy with the outcomes of our judicial system you need to do something about it.</p>
<p></p>
<p>You don't like seeing people being let off with a minimum sentence? Vote out the judges who do so.</p>
<p>You don't like that the minimums for certain things are so low? Lobby for changes to the law.</p>
<p></p>
<p>We can argue and bitch about what we each think is right an wrong all day. We can stand on rooftops and shout how we, as a subculture, feel wronged by the way the laws are written and enforced but it's not going to change a damn thing unless we work to get he laws changed to what we want and the judges who find in ways we dislike off the bench.</p>
<p></p>