Are we too strict in applying and adhering to rules?

Eliot Rosewater

Last Friday I saw four unopened bundles of newspapers by one of the entrances to my college building. When I entered the building I noticed that the shop was closed, and figured that the newspaper distributors had delivered the newspapers without realising this. So the newspapers weren't going to be used.

I like reading the newspaper, so I thought I'd take one. But I was nervous. This was 10am. I toyed with the idea all day, then at about half one I plucked up the courage, went out, opened the bundle, and took a copy of the Irish Times. The world hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, collapsed since.

It got me thinking. Those newspapers were most definitely destined for the bin. The shop wasn't going to open, no one who owned them was going to take them, and they were going to lie around until one of the janitors threw them away. So there was no logical reason why I couldn't take one, or why anyone (bar other shopkeepers) might take issue with it.

The problem seems to me that we apply rules too strictly. If one of the security guards came out he might have given out to me for stealing. Why? Because I was breaking the rules - even though the rule, in this case, was clearly redundant. But in my experience security guards, teachers and other figures of authority still insist on applying rules when the context demands they be ignored.

Do you agree?

Denerick

Thief!

I've done the same myself before. Only I used to steal The Economist (An even more middle class thief than you).

This is the way I look at it. If someone working in a restaurant steals some frozen chips that are about to be thrown out because they are short dated, then I have no problem with that. More power to them. The fact is though this will likely lead to a habit. Soon the fellow will become a compulsive thief. Sometimes the rule is at its most important when its absurd - puts an end to the slippery slope right at the top.

If you legitimise theft in any way, soon enough you'll begin rationalising it when its less grey.

I speak as someone with grave moral elasticity, just making the point.

krd

Denerick wrote: »

This is the way I look at it. If someone working in a restaurant steals some frozen chips that are about to be thrown out because they are short dated, then I have no problem with that. More power to them. The fact is though this will likely lead to a habit. Soon the fellow will become a compulsive thief. Sometimes the rule is at its most important when its absurd - puts an end to the slippery slope right at the top.

Some restaurants let their staff take food home that is about to spoil. Some don't - and they bin it, without allowing the staff to take it. Invariably, in the restaurants where they bin the food, they're run by a petty mean spirited bollox who feels cheated if anyone else enjoys a windfall. Cruelty gives some people great pleasure. They enjoy the looks on faces of the minimum wage staff as perfectly good food is thrown away.

The same can be said for that court case in England. Where they're prosecuting a girl for taking food from Tesco's bins.

Sometimes the rule is at its most important when its absurd - puts an end to the slippery slope right at the top.

Important for bolloxes.

krd

Eliot Rosewater, you, unfortunately, have committed a crime that is not victimless.

Newsagents, receive bundles of newspapers from the distributor. Everyday a portion of these newspapers ends up in the bin.

Just before the shop closes for the night, the shop keeper removes the mast heads of the unsold papers and returns these masthead to the distributor. The shopkeeper is then just charged for the papers they have sold.

By you taking the paper without paying, the shop still has to pay.

You have stolen from the shop.

Eliot, if you do not wish to be plagued by guilt all your life, if I were you, I'd find some way to make amends. You'll never pass a lie detector test when they'll ask you have you ever committed a crime of moral turpitude.


Then again this may just be the path your life is headed down. Welcome to the underworld.

Eliot Rosewater

krd wrote: »

By you taking the paper without paying, the shop still has to pay.

Yes, but if I hadn't taken it the shop still would have had to pay for the newspapers. There was no one from the shop around, and the caretakers would have just binned them. (The shop is run by an external company.) There were papers there from Thursday too which hadn't been touched because the shop managers weren't there to take the mast heads either.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

looksee

The printers were not going to print less newspapers because the shop was closed.

It would have caused more hassle to change the delivery route than to just leave it be. And anyway the printers would have been left with a couple of bundles of papers that someone would have to make the decision to dump.

The shop either cancelled the papers, or it did not, maybe they were at a loss, or maybe not.

None of the above matters, whoever the papers belonged to, they did not belong to you. And remember you will be on CCTV! I think you should organise a lawyer now, or leave the country....

seamus

I think the main problem is one that boards has seen when applying rules.

Ideally, the spirit of the law should be all that's important, the letter of the law is not. Unfortunately since the law must treat everyone equally, how do you apply a fuzzy concept like the spirit of the law?

Since the definition of stealing legally is (something like) the intent to deprive another entity (be it a person or company) of their property, it stands to reason that there must be some value upon that property, for the entity who has lost it. In this case the spirit of the law says that theft from a bin is not theft at all since you are not depriving anyone of anything.
But then you have a problem in that someone else gets convicted of stealing something which is of marginally more (but barely any) value to its owner - say the theft of an old bucket from someone's garden, which hasn't been used in ten years and has a hole in it.

How do you rationalise that one person has stolen, but someone else hasn't? How do you draw a line when you're apply a fuzzy notion of spirit instead of a solid notion like the letter?

In reality we all operate mentally on the notion that the spirit is important - hence why we drive above the speed limit when we deem it safe (because the spirit of the speed limit law is safety, the actual limit is irrelevant. This is also why conflict comes in and people feel hard done by when they're caught; they don't feel they've done anything wrong because they stuck to the spirit of the law.

Eliot's example is actually very good for this. In the spirit of the law, he didn't see any problem; the papers were going to waste, so no-one was being deprived of anything. In reality, since unsold papers return to the printer for refunding, there is a material loss there, so applying the spirit of the law on a personal level doesn't take into account that an individual may not possess the full facts on which to apply that law. Instead if they stick to the letter of the law, they cannot fall foul of it.

Eliot Rosewater

seamus wrote: »

Eliot's example is actually very good for this. In the spirit of the law, he didn't see any problem; the papers were going to waste, so no-one was being deprived of anything. In reality, since unsold papers return to the printer for refunding, there is a material loss there, so applying the spirit of the law on a personal level doesn't take into account that an individual may not possess the full facts on which to apply that law. Instead if they stick to the letter of the law, they cannot fall foul of it.

That's a very good post. Just to reiterate though, there were no members of the company operating the shop around that day, and they weren't going to be around until the following Monday, so I figured that they wouldn't be able to get a refund on Thursday's and Friday's newpapers.

However, if I'm wrong I accept that. I believed at the time that there would be no material damage done to any person or company by taking a newspaper.

One could now ask whether that is suitable justification.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I figured

And therein lies the conflict. Neither you nor I know if there was any material loss here. Maybe the shop lost money on the stack anyway, maybe they didn't.

One could now ask whether that is suitable justification.

It's probably a defence to some degree. Mitigating at the very least. Obviously there is a certain amount of responsibility on your part as you were not in full possession of the facts, so you acted without full consideration of what you were doing.
But you did act in good faith - and one could reasonably argue that if the shop had been open or if you'd been challenged, you were prepared to pay full price. So therefore no intent to deprive. But that's "what ifs" and "would haves" which are close to worthless in court because anybody can claim what they would have done.

I'd say that when something has been thrown in a bin, the former owner has deliberately relinquished his ownership rights over it. By placing it in a bin, he was effectively saying, "I don't want this possession anymore. I don't care what happens to it from this point forward. I just want rid of it." Whether it ends up as landfill, or winds up in the possession of someone else, is immaterial to him.

What if it was put there by accident? Although the bin is due to be picked up and items disposed of, until that happens there is still scope for the property owner to reclaim their property and undo their mistake. Obviously not saying that this is a valid prosecution argument - even if it was a mistake, if food has been in a bin it can't be reclaimed. But if the property has been accidentally placed into the bin, then the owner is deprived of that property if someone else subsquently takes it. The waste disposal company are covered because they have a contract/agreement to destroy everything in the bin, mistake or not.

I'm just trying to illustrate here that it's very rarely so black-and-white.

Eliot Rosewater

Funny you mention rubbish: I also took a copy of the Irish Times out of a recycling bin last Tuesday. Newspaper companies are making nothing out of me!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HivemindXX

Not that I think there's anything deeply wrong with the actions as outlined but...

I guess the "thin end of the wedge" argument could be used. It's common for bakeries to throw out fresh cakes at the end of the day. Does this make it ok for me to shoplift a cake at midday reasoning that it was just going to be thrown out anyway.

With regards to the example of restaurants giving wasted food to staff and the mean spirits of those owners that don't allow this I have a story. There was a person who worked for a pizza place who had the policy of letting the staff have wasted food. This person would often get a third party to make a large order just before closing time and then phone up 15 minutes later and cancel the order. They'd get the free pizza ... and this is the reason we can't have nice things.

Earthhorse

You opened the bundle of unopened newspapers which I assume was addressed to the shop and which you knew was intended for them; I would think that, technically, the greater offence you are guilty of, on top of stealing, is interfering with the mail, a pretty serious offence and rightly so.

Are we sometimes too strict in applying the letter of the law? No doubt. But I wouldn't agree that the Irish are good examples of this. If anything, we often have too lax an attitude to the law and to rules and regulations in general. American society would be a better example where applying the letter of the law has probably gone too far.

krd

Salvaging something that has been discarded is not theft.

There's a silliness I've noticed in Dublin. Lots of shops have started putting locks on their bins. An it's not for insurance purposes.

A few of the Tescos go to extreme lengths to make sure no one can steal their rubbish.

Earthhorse

Would have thought that's to do with privacy issues etc. A lot of information can be gathered from dumpster diving.

seamus

krd wrote: »

There's a silliness I've noticed in Dublin. Lots of shops have started putting locks on their bins. An it's not for insurance purposes.

A few of the Tescos go to extreme lengths to make sure no one can steal their rubbish.

There could be an aesthetic/security issue there. Having hi-ace vans pull up throughout the day (or at the end of the day) to rummage through your bins is undesirable and there's an increased risk of follow-on crime from such people hanging around. Superquinn gets around these problem by having a compactor out the back which is switched on whenever need.

looksee

Someone takes an item of food out of a Tesco bin, someone else has already thrown something like maybe raw chicken into the bin that has contaminated the food.

First person gets sick and sues Tesco.

Tesco have to go to a lot of expense and aggravation to prove that the food was removed from a waste bin, and 'no, milud, we didn't lock the bins as we didn't think anyone would take food from the bins and eat it'. 'Yes, milud, we will idiot-proof the bins to save people from themselves'.

krd

looksee wrote: »

Someone takes an item of food out of a Tesco bin, someone else has already thrown something like maybe raw chicken into the bin that has contaminated the food.

First person gets sick and sues Tesco.

Tesco have to go to a lot of expense and aggravation to prove that the food was removed from a waste bin, and 'no, milud, we didn't lock the bins as we didn't think anyone would take food from the bins and eat it'. 'Yes, milud, we will idiot-proof the bins to save people from themselves'.

Right, you think any judge will make an award to someone for getting sick after eating out of someone else's bin?

Should we all put locks on our household bins? - just to be on the safe side.

It's just the ultimate in mean fistedness.

There are people who wouldn't let you have the steam off their piss.

Dumpster diving is common in other countries.

I have know people who've worked in restaurants where the pissy little manager has thrown food in bin - and refused to let staff have it. It's a special kind of meanness.

Earthhorse

I'm pretty sure there are Health & Safety regulations surrounding how restaurants and foodstores dispose of their food. I don't know if locking their bins is covered but I'd be pretty sure ensuring the food doesn't get out of the bins and into people's hands, is.

krd

seamus wrote: »

There could be an aesthetic/security issue there. Having hi-ace vans pull up throughout the day (or at the end of the day) to rummage through your bins is undesirable and there's an increased risk of follow-on crime from such people hanging around. Superquinn gets around these problem by having a compactor out the back which is switched on whenever need.

You're talking about Travellers - aren't you?

I've got a news flash for you - Travellers go to the supermarket anyway - they're not just attracted by the bins.

seamus

krd wrote: »

You're talking about Travellers - aren't you?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of dumpster divers outside of that community.

krd

Earthhorse wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there are Health & Safety regulations surrounding how restaurants and foodstores dispose of their food. I don't know if locking their bins is covered but I'd be pretty sure ensuring the food doesn't get out of the bins and into people's hands, is.

Once it's binned, it's no longer their responsibility.

If someone chooses to eat out of a bin, that's their funeral.

HivemindXX

krd wrote: »

Once it's binned, it's no longer their responsibility.

If someone chooses to eat out of a bin, that's their funeral.

I doubt you are a lawyer. Chances are these bins are still on their property which would certainly allow the argument that the contents are still their responsibility.

Does the supermarket think it's possible someone might eat out of the bins? If they have ever had to chase off dumpster divers then they have to answer yes.

Since they know people will eat out of the bins did they take any measures to stop this or ensure the rubbish was not contaminated? I doubt "No, it's their funeral" would be an acceptable answer. "Yes, we put a lock on it" would be much better.

Eliot Rosewater

Earthhorse wrote: »

You opened the bundle of unopened newspapers which I assume was addressed to the shop and which you knew was intended for them; I would think that, technically, the greater offence you are guilty of, on top of stealing, is interfering with the mail, a pretty serious offence and rightly so.

Newspapers don't go through "the mail". A newspaper van drives around in the morning and drops the unaddressed see-through packages near the shop. The argument that someone did lose out by my taking the newspaper is very tenable; but claiming I interfered with the mail is just stretching it.

CiaranC

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Are we too strict in applying and adhering to rules?

Who is "we" exactly? "The rules" of society appear to be geared towards a majority body of people in the "middle" of our society, of which Boards seems pretty representative. It seems these people are conditioned to following the rules and seldom question if or why they should.

On the other hand, there are bodies of people at either ends of this spectrum, the so-called "habitual criminal classes" and "white collar criminals", for whom the rules are just something to be ignored.

Which is why we can have people going to jail for non payment of fines of a couple of hundred euros at the same time as having people who swindled millions from the state walking around scot-free. We have college kids being hauled before the courts for possession of small amounts of cannabis at the same time as large scale drug selling operations right out in the open on Dublins boardwalks. A gigantic operation for catching people going 10kmh over the speed limit on dual carriageways on the way to work at the same time as having people with 80+ driving convictions driving around the place, not a bother on them.

The truth is that the whole system relies on the overwhelming majority buying into the notion that they must follow the rules for whatever reason, be-it some kind of "morality" that applies specifically to them, or fear.

The truth of the matter is that the rules are in fact just a thin veneer, a charade. You can get away with pretty much anything you want if you are just intelligent enough about it not to get caught, which really is not difficult. And even if you do get caught by our incredibly efficient state system, the consequences are small enough to be irrelevant. Its when enough people actually come to realise this that society inevitably starts to break down.

I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. - Heinlein

raah!

If Crime and Punishment and Denerick's post have taught us anything is that we need not stop at "it's not actually hurting anybody" to justify our various thefts/law breakings.

It is very easy, once we start rationalising down the slope, to add qualifiers to statements like "I don't want to harm anyone". It can be quickly transmuted to "I don't want to harm anyone I like" or "I don't want to harm anyone who doesn't deserve it". And both of these would fit perfectly well with our biological predisposition.

Someone can set themselves up as a principled deontolgist, and say "I've never stolen, on principle". But how do we know they are not just a coward? How do we know they are not just a coward? We don't, and it wouldn't be the most solid inference for them to impute their moral superiority to something which we would have done whether or not we possessed any sense of right or wrong at all. (In this I agree with Ciaran C, but do think that there is also a degree of inatness in people's moral behaviour, aside from being imposed on them by society)

So, my opinion is that the only way to apply or adhere to any rules is to do so strictly, unwaveringly and unreasonably. Otherwise, one might realise that one's duty does not always coincide so easily with one's wishes.

And while we are telling stories about how badass we are. I recently (yesterday, in fact, and this was the first time I stole anything in a number of years) stole some fancy youghurts from tesco, after having deliberately set out to do so to prove to myself that I was not a coward, but infact, a man of the highest principles.

Hohohohoho, what a paradox!

raah!

CiaranC wrote: »

Its when enough people actually come to realise this that society inevitably starts to break down.

I think people would also realise that it is in their own individual interests that everyone else does not act in the same manner as they do. But there is certainly room for a small minority to run about breaking the rules forever. This small minority should not however, say things like "everyone should break the rules".

That minority in which people can do as they please without their profligacy creating a world in which they actually have less of a good time is , however, more than big enough to fit everybody who posts in this thread :P

Denerick

krd wrote: »

Salvaging something that has been discarded is not theft.

There's a silliness I've noticed in Dublin. Lots of shops have started putting locks on their bins. An it's not for insurance purposes.

A few of the Tescos go to extreme lengths to make sure no one can steal their rubbish.

I work in a supermarket. The reason they do this is because a homeless guy took a half eaten pizza out of a bin a couple of years ago, got really sick, and sued the supermarket. Ever since then all bins have to be padlocked. I kid you not.

Earthhorse

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Newspapers don't go through "the mail". A newspaper van drives around in the morning and drops the unaddressed see-through packages near the shop. The argument that someone did lose out by my taking the newspaper is very tenable; but claiming I interfered with the mail is just stretching it.

I'm not sure the fact that it was a private delivery matters in the eyes of the law. The fact that it was unaddressed might though. In my time working at Centra I remember the bundles would come with an address wedged between the plastic binding and the plastic wrapping.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

If you legitimise theft in any way, soon enough you'll begin rationalising it when its less grey.

I agree, Eliot is probably knocking off the post office as we speak.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

liah

Any victimless crime shouldn't be a crime at all, in my books.

Setun

liah wrote: »

Any victimless crime shouldn't be a crime at all, in my books.

That's a slightly problematic view though - for example, many crimes have the potential to victimise, but perhaps often don't. The punishment that comes with the committing of a crime is an example to others and also a future deterrent to the perpetrator. At the point a crime is committed, it cannot easily be foreseen if there will be victims or not.

silverharp

There is supposed to be a statistic that the average person can break the law several times every day. It leaves one with the feeling that we are being managed in an overly heavy fashion or that the definition of a crime is far too broad. Even take a simple act like dropping a piece of litter, do it in the Aviva or in the Dundrum shopping centre (no crime) do it in Grafton street and its a crime (of sorts) where you can be fined.

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

Any victimless crime shouldn't be a crime at all, in my books.

A fine ideal but too difficult to implement in reality.

If you give your money to me on the premise that I'll keep it safely for you in my bank vault and I take your money, without your permission, invest it, double it and then return to you the capital as agreed who has been the victim here? Nobody, yet there is no doubt in my mind that this should still be illegal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HivemindXX

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Maths is fun. In 2008 the IRS received over 155 million individual returns. So another way of stating this burden is that the average person spends less than 45 minutes a week doing their taxes.

Doesn't sound quite so scary then. Of course this ignores the fact that that 6 billion hours figure includes businesses. Some of which certainly employ people full time to come up with clever solutions to their tax burden. The vast majority of this time is not a "government requirement for filing taxes" but rather a voluntary effort to seek methods of minimising taxes paid. If a company can spend $1M on accountants to save $5M in taxes they will do it and that's fine. Turning around and complaining that the government requires you to spend that $1M is a bit rich though.

I doubt the average person spends anything like 45 minutes a week working on their personal taxes.

liah

Daddio wrote: »

That's a slightly problematic view though - for example, many crimes have the potential to victimise, but perhaps often don't. The punishment that comes with the committing of a crime is an example to others and also a future deterrent to the perpetrator. At the point a crime is committed, it cannot easily be foreseen if there will be victims or not.

I'll rephrase: a perceived victimless crime shouldn't be a crime until there is a victim made known. If no victim makes themselves known, then there is no crime.

Case-by-case basis. I don't believe in making examples of people, I believe in education on why these things are potentially dangerous. Seems to be far more effective a deterrent.

silverharp

HivemindXX wrote: »

Maths is fun. In 2008 the IRS received over 155 million individual returns. So another way of stating this burden is that the average person spends less than 45 minutes a week doing their taxes.

Doesn't sound quite so scary then. Of course this ignores the fact that that 6 billion hours figure includes businesses. Some of which certainly employ people full time to come up with clever solutions to their tax burden. The vast majority of this time is not a "government requirement for filing taxes" but rather a voluntary effort to seek methods of minimising taxes paid. If a company can spend $1M on accountants to save $5M in taxes they will do it and that's fine. Turning around and complaining that the government requires you to spend that $1M is a bit rich though.

I doubt the average person spends anything like 45 minutes a week working on their personal taxes.

now you are understating the case. Anyone that has run a business will know the hassle of dealing with tax authorities. For instance going through every item you buy for your building every year and paying an auditing firm to decide if its capital or not. Going though all your suppliers and filling in a return if they are over a certain limit. Paying for software updates for payroll systems and training for staff.
A flat tax would knock all this on the head. but no, its better to armies of pencil puchers in the private and public sector leaching off the productive process.

Crucifix

liah wrote: »

I'll rephrase: a perceived victimless crime shouldn't be a crime until there is a victim made known. If no victim makes themselves known, then there is no crime.

Case-by-case basis. I don't believe in making examples of people, I believe in education on why these things are potentially dangerous. Seems to be far more effective a deterrent.

There are definitely cases where I'd agree with you, but in cases of reckless endangerment, drink driving, etc, I think I'd consider the undue risk to people's life and well being to constitute a crime, even if no one is victimised

liah

Crucifix wrote: »

There are definitely cases where I'd agree with you, but in cases of reckless endangerment, drink driving, etc, I think I'd consider the undue risk to people's life and well being to constitute a crime, even if no one is victimised

I think that all that encourages people to do is think the government should take responsibility for what they do, and imo that's a bad thing to encourage. People should be learning how to take responsibility for their own actions, and learning why they need to.

Still, I can see your point. I'm not 100% on where I stand on speeding and the like.

Crucifix

liah wrote: »

I think that all that encourages people to do is think the government should take responsibility for what they do, and imo that's a bad thing to encourage. People should be learning how to take responsibility for their own actions, and learning why they need to.

Still, I can see your point. I'm not 100% on where I stand on speeding and the like.

I agree, but that's true of every law

HivemindXX

silverharp wrote: »

now you are understating the case. Anyone that has run a business will know the hassle of dealing with tax authorities.
<snip>
A flat tax would knock all this on the head. but no, its better to armies of pencil puchers in the private and public sector leaching off the productive process.

I thought the thrust of this was how we, as individuals, have to deal with too many regulations these days. I see this tax thing as a red herring trying to drag the topic over to how government regulation is harming free enterprise. An issue I think we can probably find one or two threads on already...

Incidentally, the reason the tax system is so complicated is because of attempts to support business. Companies lobby the government to support them by giving tax breaks for capital investment and reams of other special cases. The sole motivating factor for whether company management would support a flat tax would be whether they would make more money out of it. This calculation would include the cost of the accountants used to process the tax claims.

I do think simplifying the tax system is a good idea. I think the currently very complex system overly rewards people who are willing to push the bounds of "creative" very close to "criminal" when structuring their taxes.

I don't see think a totally flat tax is a good idea though.

liah

Crucifix wrote: »

I agree, but that's true of every law

I don't believe so. Like I said, it should be taken on a case by case basis. I don't see a problem with anyone speeding down long, straight, back country roads (aka not the kind you'd find in Ireland..) when there's no cars in sight for miles. But I'd have a problem with someone speeding in the middle of town where anyone could pop out 'round a corner. I do, however, think drink driving/driving under the influence should be a crime, giving it more thought, as you're not in the right mind to make that decision responsibly. But for the rest, like speeding, I think again it should be case by case.

People still need to learn some serious personal responsibility. Punishment isn't that much of a deterrent. Loads of people still drink and drive, speed, etc etc. A law isn't going to stop them. They're going to trust their own sense of personal responsibility. So, in my view, the key to making them more responsible is to make them aware of any possible dangers of their actions from a very early age. It's sad if their mistakes lead them to injuring or even killing someone, but they're probably the type who would do it whether the law was in place or not.

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

I think that all that encourages people to do is think the government should take responsibility for what they do, and imo that's a bad thing to encourage. People should be learning how to take responsibility for their own actions, and learning why they need to.

I don't see how such laws to encourage people to think the government will take responsibility for what they do. More accurately, the government will take action against their lack of responsibility which recklessly endangered others. If only we actually thoroughly enforced and took seriously cases such as these there would be a strong disincentive for people to engage in these activities. As it stands, we're good at drafting lots of legislation and bad at enforcing it.

liah wrote: »

People still need to learn some serious personal responsibility. Punishment isn't that much of a deterrent. Loads of people still drink and drive, speed, etc etc. A law isn't going to stop them. They're going to trust their own sense of personal responsibility. So, in my view, the key to making them more responsible is to make them aware of any possible dangers of their actions from a very early age. It's sad if their mistakes lead them to injuring or even killing someone, but they're probably the type who would do it whether the law was in place or not.

The law, in statute alone, won't stop them but the law, enforced properly will. Changing it such that people will only be punished when there's a victim won't change a thing unless the law is enforced except to shift the focus of the legal establishment onto debates about victimhood.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

I don't see how such laws to encourage people to think the government will take responsibility for what they do. More accurately, the government will take action against their lack of responsibility which recklessly endangered others. If only we actually thoroughly enforced and took seriously cases such as these there would be a strong disincentive for people to engage in these activities. As it stands, we're good at drafting lots of legislation and bad at enforcing it.

It shouldn't be up to the government to tell us when to be responsible. It should be up to us, is my point. Let the government punish only when there is another party involved, to mediate, but if you're not hurting anyone other than yourself it shouldn't be a crime.

The law, in statute alone, won't stop them but the law, enforced properly will. Changing it such that people will only be punished when there's a victim won't change a thing unless the law is enforced except to shift the focus of the legal establishment onto debates about victimhood.

Obviously I'm not saying it'll change anything in the current system. I'm simply talking about what I would prefer to see. If I could take a country and enforce it my way (not a crime unless there's a victim) from the get go kind of thing. I just think it's more sensible.

Critical thinking and learning to be personally responsible for your actions goes out the window when you know the government makes the final decision in everything you do. The more responsibility you take away from people the more helpless, unintelligent and reliant on the government/court they become. That can be quite dangerous, in an Orwellian sort of way.

Setun

I watched Louis Theroux's documentary about crystal meth addicts in California, and the incredibly high percentage of crimes committed that are associated with the drug (eg burglaries, shootings etc). The use, possession, and supply of the drug in itself is illegal, apparently for good reason as the evidence points to the probability that it is an incredibly destructive drug. When we talk about "victimless" crimes, how should the law be upheld in the case of the perpetrator of the crime is also a victim? Or perhaps the crime itself presents no victims, but secondary effects of the crime does? Can we trust some people to do what's (socially) right for their own sake - in the case of heavy crystal meth addiction, or should the government have a say in this?

Btw I'm not trying to catch anybody out - I'm finding this discussion interesting, and I don't have any clear answers myself.

liah

Hard drugs are a tough one. I still don't know what I think about the legalization of things like meth, PCP or heroin. I do feel that if they were legalized and regulated, crime would decrease significantly. If people want to self-destruct, that's their right, and at least with legalization and regulation, the drugs are clean, the money paid towards them is not going to criminals, and the money can instead be put into rehabilitation centres and better drug education programs. I do think with better, more honest drug education programs (not simply using examples to scaremonger, but actually describing the physical effects of the drug and how they work in your system both chemically, physically and psychologically, as well as the potential dangers and side effects), the amount of people who would try the drugs in the first place would decrease significantly. Sort of like how abstinence-only education is failing miserably in the locations it's instituted, but proper sex education has more people being responsible, less pregnancies/STIs, better healthcare programs, etc.

I'm keeping an eye on countries like Portugal where basically all drugs are decriminalized, but it's really hard to tell unless a country does actually go forward and try to regulate those drugs. It has been noted that drug use has actually decreased in countries where drugs are decriminalised/legalized, rather than the opposite, which is what one would expect.

Setun

Interestingly I've been living in the Netherlands now for a while, a country obviously famous for its coffeeshops, but many of the Dutch people I've befriended don't bother with cannabis at all - in fact it's mainly tourists and immigrants that frequent them, essentially either people that are relatively new to the country, or who are just passing through. As I've said, it's just my experience, but I'd like to see some statistical evidence of the availability/desirability relationship in practice. Many would argue passionately for and against the thread title with respect to drug use I think, although for me there is no clear answer on the matter.