Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

The Law is Heartless

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:16:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Don't believe me?

Explain why it is a good thing that the murderer of my wife can get off scot-free, just because the police were zealous and violated the search warrant by searching a friend's car at the residence.

Explain how it is fair that, because I don't have a written contract with my ex-lover, the money I loaned them is never going to be paid back, because I can't prove in court they owe me money.

Tell me society is better off that a man who reads a law forbidding the photography of women in the bathroom is allowed to avoid prosecution because he videotaped them.

The law is heartless, and should not be used to create morality.
My work here is, finally, done.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:23:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 1:16:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Don't believe me?

Explain why it is a good thing that the murderer of my wife can get off scot-free, just because the police were zealous and violated the search warrant by searching a friend's car at the residence.

Explain how it is fair that, because I don't have a written contract with my ex-lover, the money I loaned them is never going to be paid back, because I can't prove in court they owe me money.

Tell me society is better off that a man who reads a law forbidding the photography of women in the bathroom is allowed to avoid prosecution because he videotaped them.

The law is heartless, and should not be used to create morality.

Are you just giving examples, or did this crap actually happen to you?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:24:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 1:16:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Don't believe me?

Explain why it is a good thing that the murderer of my wife can get off scot-free, just because the police were zealous and violated the search warrant by searching a friend's car at the residence.

Explain how it is fair that, because I don't have a written contract with my ex-lover, the money I loaned them is never going to be paid back, because I can't prove in court they owe me money.

Tell me society is better off that a man who reads a law forbidding the photography of women in the bathroom is allowed to avoid prosecution because he videotaped them.

The law is heartless, and should not be used to create morality.

Well laws don't exist in a vacuum. Do you agree that it's a good (moral) thing that juries can disregard the law if they want to?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:28:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 1:24:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/25/2015 1:16:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Don't believe me?

Explain why it is a good thing that the murderer of my wife can get off scot-free, just because the police were zealous and violated the search warrant by searching a friend's car at the residence.

Explain how it is fair that, because I don't have a written contract with my ex-lover, the money I loaned them is never going to be paid back, because I can't prove in court they owe me money.

Tell me society is better off that a man who reads a law forbidding the photography of women in the bathroom is allowed to avoid prosecution because he videotaped them.

The law is heartless, and should not be used to create morality.

Well laws don't exist in a vacuum.
True, but I just tire of people saying that because something is bad, there should be a law.
Do you agree that it's a good (moral) thing that juries can disregard the law if they want to?
I'm not sure. I'm inclined to say yes, but, we both know, that juries will also convict due to non-legal reasons, and that is assuming there is a jury at all.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 1:29:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 1:23:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Are you just giving examples, or did this crap actually happen to you?
Does it matter? Besides, I always get a contract.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:33:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 1:16:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Don't believe me?

Explain why it is a good thing that the murderer of my wife can get off scot-free, just because the police were zealous and violated the search warrant by searching a friend's car at the residence.

Explain how it is fair that, because I don't have a written contract with my ex-lover, the money I loaned them is never going to be paid back, because I can't prove in court they owe me money.

Tell me society is better off that a man who reads a law forbidding the photography of women in the bathroom is allowed to avoid prosecution because he videotaped them.

The law is heartless, and should not be used to create morality.

Each of those has a reason, and ignoring WHY things are that way is a bad idea.

Search warrants exist to prevent police abuses of power. IF the police abuse their power, there NEEDS to be some consequence. The notion of any "mistake" (which may, or may not, be a mistake) resulting in the wholesale firing of anyone tangentially involved is unworkable. The destruction of the case (which also negates the incentive to act badly in the first place) IS workable. It's unfortunate, but it's not the law's fault that the police violated it--it's the police's. Don't decry the law--decry the police's actions.

As to the "no written contract" law--would it be any more just for you to just claim they owe you money when they don't, and then they have to pay it? Perhaps you gave them a gift, because you were in better financial straits and, now that the relationship is over, you want to screw them, turning a gift into a loan that never would have been taken out.

As to the last example, either the law was written poorly (legislature's fault) or the prosecutor screwed up and charged under the wrong statute. Again, it's not the law's fault when people screw up.

Broadly speaking, however, I do agree with you that the law should not be used to create morality. What it SHOULD be used for, in my opinion, is creating a better society.

That is, a society without murder, or one wherein murder is prohibited and punished, is a better society than one that does not. A society that has universal health care is, generally speaking, better than one that does not. A society whose businesses serve all of the public is better than one where a class of people can find themselves completely unable to function in it. In many cases, this will line up with morality, but it's not exactly the same thing--and the grounds for arguing it are QUITE different. When discussing whether society will be better for law X, you should have to point to real reasons. Morality is in many minds linked inextricably to religion, thus making it difficult to have productive dialogue. This is of course not true universally, but it's true in enough cases to be problematic.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!