nerdgirl 0 #1 May 13, 2009 Do you consider the embrace and enforcement of the rule of law to be a strength or a weakness? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 May 13, 2009 This ought to be interesting. Let the hand chopping begin!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #3 May 13, 2009 Strict rule of law (as far as I understand it, having made it through the Wikipedia article): only if the law remains as a democratically (i.e. by the people or their electees) modifiable construct, and with an appeal process. The vast majority of us speed at some time or another. It's OK if we get a ticket; a known consequence. But if we're stopped by the police, and we're speeding because there's an injured person in the car, we can still be delayed and get a ticket. Is that as OK? But we trust our system, and we trust our laws. It's one of the best things about America to my way of thinking. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #4 May 13, 2009 I agree with you. There are quite a few laws that are on the books that need to go away but at least we can change that. it will just take time, we still have a segment of the population that is not enlightened enough to realize that some things do not need to be illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #5 May 13, 2009 Quote Do you consider the embrace and enforcement of the rule of law to be a strength or a weakness? /Marg In general I favor the rule of law but my faith in it has been somewhat tested in recent years for various reasons. Some of my reservations include: 1. The court system--civil or criminal--should be used only as a last resort or in extreme cases when other remedies fail. Too often it seems to me that people are increasingly litigious and either threaten to go to court--or, on the other side of the coin, refuse to deal reasonably unless taken to court--rather than attempt to work out differences with the other party. 2. There are too many victimless crimes on the books--and too often aggressively enforced--and these bad laws are being repealed at a disappointingly slow pace even allowing for the fact that one would expect the legislative/legal system to move slowly. Indeed I would argue that almost zero has been accomplished in this regard since the early 1970's with the possible exception of the movement to legalize same sex marriage. If the system has a built in mechanism to remove old, bad laws I'd like to see more concrete evidence of such a mechanism in action. 3. There are too many laws which absolutely do have a real, identifiable, victim and which are increasingly being ignored in certain cases. I'm referring here specifically to the increasing tolerance for torture although I could probably think of other examples if I wanted to. 4. Illegal immigration. No one wants to touch this issue because it would be political suicide--but this issue absolutely must be dealt with if we are to take seriously any claim to operate via the rule of law. Either the immigration laws are bad--and we should be legalizing existing illegal immigrant--or the immigration laws are good--and we should be enforcing them. But taking a stand either way would be political suicide so no politican has the courage to do so. The issue is so huge, however, that no claim that we operate under the rule of law can be taken seriously until we find the courage to act one way or the other on this issue."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 May 13, 2009 I consider it a strength. I don't agree with many laws because I find many to be arbitrary and wasteful. But the rule of law provides consistency. We know that if the rule is the rule then we don't have to worry about inconsistency. "Yes. The law sucks. But the law says joint tenancy is 50-50. Had you seen me beforehand I'd have told you to go tenancy in common. But, you are a joint tenant. No court will find otherwise." I like the presictability. It sets the standard. Without the rule of law there would be no consistency - even less than now. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #7 May 14, 2009 We've heard a few folks comment on why they see it as a strength, if sometimes complicated or less than perfect in practice. Are either of the two folks who clicked that it is a weakness willing to share why/how they reached that conclusion? If you'd like to remain anonymous to the wider SC, I'd still be interested in hearing your explanation via PM. For argument's sake, I'll try to come up with an argument on why rule of law is a weakness too. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #8 May 14, 2009 Rule of law could easily be perceived as a weakness if your frame of reference is the state, rather than the individual. Allowing the citizenry protections against arbitrary state action (one of the basic tenets of rule of law) can hamper the state's ability to perform it's functions. This is even more true if your state is non-democratic, but it's still true in a democratically led state. A more interesting question, to me would be "Do we really have the rule of law in the USA (or insert another place)?" A long time ago, in a land far, far away, I used to work for a charity called the Soros Foundation, which (at that time and place) was primarily concerned with recovering the rule of law in nations recovering from soviet style authoritarianism.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #9 May 14, 2009 Quote Do you consider the embrace and enforcement of the rule of law to be a strength or a weakness? /Marg I think it's a weakness when a law violates common sense logic. For example, if I'm driving at 2am and a light is red for a ridiculously long time and there's no one around for blocks, I should not get a ticket if I run that red because my violation of the law harmed no one, nor did it even have the potential to harm anyone. I think logic, reason and common sense should be above the laws written in some township's books in many situations. I have a skydiving friend from Israel who told me that often people get away with speeding in that country because officers allow offenders to reason and talk with them. I like that, and wish it were more like that here (sorry, I just can't let go of your other thread relating to driving).I think we're much too strict with the laws for even the most minor things in this country. edited to add: forgive me if I completely misunderstood the question, I just interpreted 'rule of law' as I saw it and not by a more formal legal definition, if there is one. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 May 14, 2009 Quoteforgive me if I completely misunderstood the question, I just interpreted 'rule of law' as I saw it and not by a more formal legal definition, if there is one. No, I think you have it mostly correct. The Rule of Law is essentially zero tolerance. While most people think it's a "good thing," they'll usually make exceptions, at which point it's no longer the Rule of Law.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #11 May 14, 2009 QuoteAre either of the two folks who clicked that it is a weakness willing to share why/how they reached that conclusion? I clicked that it is a weakness. I reached that conclusion because I believe that there have been, are, and will be numerous unjust laws and thus embracing and enforcing those laws without discretion is a weakness."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #12 May 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteforgive me if I completely misunderstood the question, I just interpreted 'rule of law' as I saw it and not by a more formal legal definition, if there is one. No, I think you have it mostly correct. The Rule of Law is essentially zero tolerance. While most people think it's a "good thing," they'll usually make exceptions, at which point it's no longer the Rule of Law. It works the other way, too. The Rule of Law means that laws are clear and known, and will be enforced equally. That means, for example, that you won't face prosecution for something that wasn't illegal when you did it, and also that you have a right to know what the laws are.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 May 14, 2009 QuoteThat means, for example, that you won't face prosecution for something that wasn't illegal when you did it . . . . That would be an Ex Post Facto law. Fortunately we don't have those in the US. We also don't have the Rule of Law either; well, for the most part. My very first response in this thread is what I think people really should think of when they think of Rule of Law; religious fundamentalist laws. Laws that were written many centuries before you and I were ever born and therefore Ex Post Facto isn't even a consideration. Nor is any idea that you can weasel your way out of it. It is written and therefore it shall be done, no exceptions, zero tolerance. I'd love to know the break down of the folks that checked "yes" to the poll and didn't realize what they were talking about. The people that complain about kids getting expelled from school for carrying a toy gun for instance. That too is The Rule of Law.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #14 May 14, 2009 QuoteThat would be an Ex Post Facto law. Right. And Ex Post Facto laws are inconsistent with the Rule of Law, as commonly articulated. Rule of Law is one of those concepts that includes a whole host of other stuff--no ex post facto, habeus corpus, due process, etc....-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #15 May 14, 2009 QuoteI'd love to know the break down of the folks that checked "yes" to the poll and didn't realize what they were talking about. That's why I said that I would have fewer reservations about the Rule of Law if I saw a stronger mechanism in place to repeal old, bad laws."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
