DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The problem is, if people are willing to break the laws we already have, what's the point of passing another one for them to break? They've already demonstrated that they aren't likely to follow the law, so the only ones that the law will actually effect are likely to be the ones who are already following the law.
If this logic is applied across the board it would be pointless to make any law prohibiting any behaviour or action. Prohibiting murder would be pointless as a person intent upon committing a murder will commit a murder irrespective of whether it's legal or not? If we wish to stop drivers speeding, do we refuse to impose and police a speed limit because those people who speed will ignore it? Of course not. Sorry DS, but this argument is utter nonsense.
The law can be and is used to change people's behaviours, usually with successful results. Whether a given action is legal or illegal will greatly influence whether people indulge in action or decide against it, often more than any other single factor.
Whose behaviors are you choosing to change, though, tweak? If there is no law on the books at all, where is the warning of action coming from? If we do not outlaw murder, say. If one commits murder, what are the consequences? There aren't any, other than being ostracized by the community, and/or vigilante justice.
If there is a law stating that a person with a previous felony conviction isn't allowed to have a gun and a person previously convicted of a felony chooses to own a gun, there is a law broken. If we make a new law stating that no one is allowed to have a gun, do you think this person is likely to choose to no longer have a gun?
We do impose and enforce a speed limit, tweak. But, we don't try to reduce the number of people who are speeding by lowering the speed limit. If people are speeding when 65 mph is the set speed limit, do you think they'll automatically decide to not speed if you lower the limit to 60 mph? All you're really doing is lowering the speed at which people who follow the speed limit travel. Perhaps a better way to prevent speeders, is to up the enforcement of current speed limits?
Ratchet up the fines and penalties if you want. Legalize drugs, but levy draconian penalties for someone who commits a crime while under the influence. In Ohio, your second DUI gets you a 1 to 5 year license suspension, 30 days with no privileges (after that, it's typical to have driving privileges to/from work only) and 90 days without your vehicle. A 3rd offense can get you 1-10 year suspension, half a year with no privileges, and vehicle forfeiture. A 4th offense can end up with a lifetime license and privilege suspension. Those are in addition to jail time and financial penalties. You don't even have to have committed any criminal act other than driving drunk to have those fines/penalties. Include being under the influence of drugs as a DUI and you will have a method for prosecution.
In Toledo, Ohio, a law was passed making it illegal to text while driving. While that's a law designed to prevent people from distracted driving, we already had a law against distracted driving. Why not simply enforce that law to include texting as a distraction? If someone is going to text while it's not legal to under distracted driving law, is it really going to impact their choice if there is a law specifically against texting while driving?
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Nevada school shooting. - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread