Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Madiel]

Fair enough.

Anyway, be it discovered or invented, I doubt that an ineffective, impractical, illogical, contradictory or partisan legislation is of much help in promoting and protecting justice, liberty and general welfare.

I never it suggested it was. I'm pointing out the issues that arise, not recommending them.

[Florestan]

I never it suggested it was.

I know. I wasn´t addressing that at you, just thinking aloud. 

[North Star]

If it´s impractical, then those who have written it are ignorant of, or deliberately ignore, the specific conditions of the society they write the law for; if it´s illogical, then they need to be send back to school. Shouldn´t that automatically disqualify them from ever writing another law? Is not the constant passing of impractical, illogical or bad laws the surest way to discredit the very idea of law?

Oh yes, the eternal conservative argument against change. Had mankind followed it we would still live in caves and fear the fire.

Society is in a constant state of change, and it follows that laws must be as well.

I´m not sure I can subscribe to that, actually I am sure I cannot subscribe. It presupposes that human behavior is in need to be modified and controlled --- and that immediately raises the question: by whom? Those who make the laws are human themselves and share all the flaws and imperfections of other humans and then what reason can they claim for their being in the position of modifying and controlling the behavior of others? What makes their own behavior exempt from the need to be controlled and modified itself? Then, another question: modify in which direction, and control in which way? Well, of course in the direction, and in the way, in which those who make the laws seem fit --- and this is the blueprint for authoritarianism at best and totalitarianism at worst.

Nothing makes their own behaviour exempt. This is about as solid an argument as claiming that there shouldn't be referees in a sport as they're not necessarily any better human beings than the athletes, or about music critics can't play every instrument better than everyone else.

In my view the purpose of the law should be neither to modify nor to control human behavior, but to keep its bad consequences at the lowest possible level, and the purpose of the lawmakers should be to discover (as opposed to invent) those rules and regulations whose general, uniform and impartial enforcement promote a humane society with as much liberty as possible and as much coercion as necessary.

The only way to keep those "bad consequences at the lowest possible level" is by controlling and modifying human behaviour. But I agree that they are means to an end.

[Florestan]

The only way to keep those "bad consequences at the lowest possible level" is by controlling and modifying human behaviour.

I have lived in a society whose government practiced, and whose legislation was directed towards, exactly that. It´s probably the reason why I so strongly oppose it.

Look at it this way:the flaws and imperfections of human beings cannot be supressed by law; one cannot pass legislation prohibiting and prosecuting greed, lust, envy, resentment, stupidity, malice a.s.o; all that law can do is to prohibit and prosecute certain actions resulting from them, to establish institutions and regulations that minimize their effects and to promote and protect social practices and behaviors grounded in the better half of human beings. Any attempt to use law for supressing them (ie, for modifying human behavior) invariably ends up in tyranny and opression.

[Karl Henning]

For El Tupé, wherever his hands may be . . .

http://www.youtube.com/v/HNnwrxrWXhU

[Madiel]

I have lived in a society whose government practiced, and whose legislation was directed towards, exactly that. It´s probably the reason why I so strongly oppose it.

Look at it this way:the flaws and imperfections of human beings cannot be supressed by law; one cannot pass legislation prohibiting and prosecuting greed, lust, envy, resentment, stupidity, malice a.s.o; all that law can do is to prohibit and prosecute certain actions resulting from them, to establish institutions and regulations that minimize their effects and to promote and protect social practices and behaviors grounded in the better half of human beings. Any attempt to use law for supressing them (ie, for modifying human behavior) invariably ends up in tyranny and opression.

Florestan, maybe this is an issue with your English, but "greed, lust, envy, resentment" are not behaviour. The actions resulting from them are behaviour. You have now more than once argued against something then effectively restated the same thing.

[Florestan]

Florestan, maybe this is an issue with your English, but "greed, lust, envy, resentment" are not behaviour. The actions resulting from them are behaviour.

Fair enough and I stand corrected. In my defense, though, I invoke again my personal experience, which raises a red flag whenever I hear about controlling people or making them act in a certain way.

[Madiel]

A law against murder is designed to stop people acting a certain way.

[Florestan]

A law against murder is designed to stop people acting a certain way.

Is it?

When and where did a law against murder actually stop people from murdering?

A law against murder is designed to legally enforce the moral notion that murder is wrong and to punish people who murder. To think that it can really prevent people from murdering goes contrary to the historical experience.

[Brian]

Is it?

When and where did a law against murder actually stop people from murdering?

A law against murder is designed to legally enforce the moral notion that murder is wrong and to punish people who murder. To think that it can really prevent people from murdering goes contrary to the historical experience.

orfeo did not say "A law against murder prevents murders." He said "A law against murder is designed" to prevent murders. So he did not even need to prove anything about actual murder data; you just misunderstood. Which I understand, since this is all in English, etc. 

But your argument that laws do not prevent lawbreakers is strange.

Murder rates are higher in countries - like certain countries in Central and South America - where law enforcement is weak or corrupt or unable to arrest murderers.

Additionally, the rise of rule of law, and the rise of a strong criminal justice system, has coincided with a historical decline of murder rates. There are other factors, too, of course. But if you claim that laws do not prevent people from murdering, you will need to cite actual evidence. http://ourworldindata.org/data/violence-rights/homicides/

[Jo498]

There was hardly any society that did not have laws against murder (if it had any laws at all). Sure, it was sometimes different what counted as murder (e.g. exposing infants, killing slaves, killing in duels etc. were often not seen as murder).
The quality of law enforcement is an entirely different point, I think. I cannot quote exact statistics. But in arguments against death penalty it is often mentioned that death penalty and its enforcement are not correlated with murder rate. (I do not know it this is true, but I am sure I have read it several times from different sources.)

Naively to me it seems that fairly simple laws and strict enforcement would have the strongest impact. The more and more complex laws there are, the more difficult (and time and resource consuming) enforcement will be and the more loopholes one tries to close the more will be found by smart lawyers. (And it gives fairly bad incentives for smart people if a lot of money can be made by finding loopholes in tax laws or similar fields because this is not productive work but only redistribution towards the ones with the smartest lawyers)

[Gurn Blanston]

In any case, to put it most simply, you and I will never know if murders may have been prevented by a law against them. I find it impossible to conceive that no one ever dissuaded himself from murder with the argument that "I could never get away with it, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life in prison".

I doubt this will be a factor in the upcoming election, apocalyptic though it may be... just sayin'.

[Florestan]

Murder rates are higher in countries - like certain countries in Central and South America - where law enforcement is weak or corrupt or unable to arrest murderers.

Orfeo did not say "enforcement of the law against murder" but "law against murder" (my English is good enough for that, at least) and such laws exist in all the countries you mentioned.

Additionally, the rise of rule of law, and the rise of a strong criminal justice system, has coincided with a historical decline of murder rates. There are other factors, too, of course.

Precisely. It´s not the law per se, it´s not the law, the whole law and nothing but the law that is responsible for the decline of murder rates. (EDIT: I am talking strictly about the law against murder).

Besides, the English criminal justice system has been historically strong and very tough, with death penalty even for minor crimes, yet murder rates did not decline until 19th century, as your graph shows.

But if you claim that laws do not prevent people from murdering, you will need to cite actual evidence.

The evidence is all around you: every year, every month and every day murder is committed throughout the whole Western world. However small the rate today compared to 500 years ago, murder has not disappeared and will not disappear from the social landscape of even the most rule-of-law-ly societies.

Besides, today in those societies the vast majority of the people who do not murder do so not because they are afraid of the law but because they regard it as moral aberration and abomination. I am convinced that if all laws whatsoever against murder were to be repealled or cease being enforced, the vast majority of the people would still not commit murder.

[Todd]

In other words, you don´t mind inefficient legislation, bad, impractical and contradictory laws as long as they don´t affect you personally, moreover, you want legislation and laws to be precisely that because as such their chances of affecting you personally are very small.

You've got it all wrong.  For instance, all laws that involve public finances affect me, they just do not affect me very much.  They also do not affect anyone else a whole lot.  There is much hyperbole about the impact of a COLA adjustment or a marginal tax rate cut or increase.  Incremental approaches to changing transfer payment programs are the best approaches.  Bold approaches are, generally speaking, more driven by ideological impulses than actuarial prudence.  Most other legislation has, at best, an almost imperceptible direct effect on me personally or most other people. 

Oh yes, the eternal conservative argument against change. Had mankind followed it we would still live in caves and fear the fire.

Again, you've got it all wrong.  At no point did I advocate against change.  I am concerned with bad legislation.  Bad legislation should ideally be stopped.  If it cannot be stopped, it should be hobbled in the text of the law itself.  For instance, the "three strikes" laws that passed all over the US are bad.  They eliminate judicial discretion in sentencing, and resulted and continue to result in unjust prison sentences.  They should have been diluted more when they were written.  If they are not eliminated completely, any rewrite or amendment of the laws should contain provisions that effectively make it impossible to implement these types of sentencing rules.  Incidentally, these laws do not directly affect me.

Good legislation should go forward and be adopted.  For instance, the government should not deign to tell adults whom they should marry, so legislation that legalizes gay marriage is a good thing and should be passed and implemented.  Incidentally, these laws do not directly affect me.

See how that works?  Not all change is good, not all change is bad.  I thought that was self-evident.

It could be from the Bible itself, it´s still a collection of platitudes.

Incorrect.  It's literally a mission statement. 

[knight66]

I have lived in a society whose government practiced, and whose legislation was directed towards, exactly that. It´s probably the reason why I so strongly oppose it.

Look at it this way:the flaws and imperfections of human beings cannot be supressed by law; one cannot pass legislation prohibiting and prosecuting greed, lust, envy, resentment, stupidity, malice a.s.o; all that law can do is to prohibit and prosecute certain actions resulting from them, to establish institutions and regulations that minimize their effects and to promote and protect social practices and behaviors grounded in the better half of human beings. Any attempt to use law for supressing them (ie, for modifying human behavior) invariably ends up in tyranny and opression.

Modifying behaviour and controlling people is what ALL law has been, and is, about. Obviously it may well not touch and alter attitudes, but has a deal of success in tempering the outward actions.

In Plato's Republic a question is asked; what would be your first action if you were given a ring to make you invisible? The answer was, that the base nature of man meant that if given such a ring, the wearer would go into the marketplace and theive, in the safe knowledge that there would be no consequences. The follow-on supposition was, that the only thing that kept men on the straight and narrow was a fear or retribution.

Mike

[Karl Henning]

Modifying behaviour and controlling people is what ALL law has been, and is, about.

Ever since (or, even before) The Ten Non-Binding Suggestions.

[Brian]

About the debate last night: apparently Donald Trump doubled down on his promise to force the US military to commit war crimes. (In particular, murdering civilian family members of suspected terrorists.) When he was asked about military sources who said they are trained to disobey illegal orders, his response was that he'd force 'em anyway.

[Gurn Blanston]

Ever since (or, even before) The Ten Non-Binding Suggestions.

And fine suggestions they are, too. As we see below...

Besides, today in those societies the vast majority of the people who do not murder do so not because they are afraid of the law but because they regard it as moral aberration and abomination. I am convinced that if all laws whatsoever against murder were to be repealed or cease being enforced, the vast majority of the people would still not commit murder.

This is so very true, it is beyond arguing. The law is not intended for the majority to whom it doesn't apply, it is for the 2% who lack innate moral values. When someone looks at the number of murders in the US, how many automatically weigh it against "yes, but there are over 300,000,000 people in the US"? 99.9% of those people don't murder anyone. Would they like to sometimes? Yes, I'm sure some of them would. At that point, which escape mechanism takes over? The moral fiber, the fear of legal repercussions, or a combination of both. I would suggest it is a blend of the two. Dostoevsky's conscience aside, I think not wanting to spend one's life in jail or being executed is equally compelling.

[Karl Henning]

Bilbo never did any mischief with his Ring of Invisibility.

Sméagol, though . . . .

[drogulus]

     

When and where did a law against murder actually stop people from murdering?

     It would be easier to make a list of societies where the law and the consequences of breaking it does not deter than to list those where it does.
     

A law against murder is designed to legally enforce the moral notion that murder is wrong and to punish people who murder. To think that it can really prevent people from murdering goes contrary to the historical experience.

     Law creates consequences for behavior the law targets. The moral theory of law sucks mightily. What's the moral argument against jaywalking? That there is usually a moral injunction involved with most law gives us a path to follow but neither a necessary or sufficient one. There are moral injunctions without law and law without moral injunctions.

     Does the law prevent bad outcomes? Yes, by the elimination of of the least likely propositions we're led to the most likely, the "least bad". I'm unaware of studies by criminologists that say there is no deterrent effect. What is found is that law deters weakly, largely due to the uncertainty of punishment, the chief deterrence, and the high level of fucked-up-ness of lawbreakers generally.