SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Why are people so ignorant of the law?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 34 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
squatcho, n.:
The button at the top of a baseball cap.
-- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:36PM (7 children)
A) The law as written is not remotely knowable in whole. You could spend well into your sixties studying it and never hit the last page.
B) The law is what your lawyer can convince a judge or jury it is, not what is written.
C) SCOTUS doesn't give a flying fuck what is written. They're going to say it means whatever they want it to mean.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by arcz on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:50PM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:57PM (4 children)
We do. It essentially means "someone decided this a while back so we're just going to make the same decision, correct or incorrect".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Thursday February 15 2018, @08:58PM (1 child)
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 15 2018, @10:43PM
The courts have an obligation to not utterly ignore the ninth and tenth amendments too but they go right ahead and ignore them anyway.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 16 2018, @05:44AM (1 child)
"someone decided this a while back so we're just going to make the same decision, correct or incorrect"
Exactly the same as every programming language you have ever learned...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @02:11PM
Ha! +1 Touché.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 2018, @08:03AM
Not sure who gave you the disagree mod. You should be >5 Insightful mod with Rarest of the Rarest Insightful Medal and If You Read One Comment Read This badge.
The rule of law doesn't mean rule by the book, it means "we did it by the book so now if you disagree we will throw in jail, as per the book". All detailed judgments are basically a person doing his or her best mental gymnastic to arrive at the 'judicious' sentence.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:15PM
Well, considering you were just arguing that private event security is paid by taxes, [soylentnews.org] which is absolutely not the case, maybe you should brush up a bit too?
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @05:28AM (19 children)
The law, such as it is, in fact, knowable. At least in the US (I assume that similar codes exist elsewhere too), you can look the law up online:
US Federal Law Can be had from a variety of places:
House of Representatives: http://uscode.house.gov/ [house.gov]
Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/collections/united-states-code/ [loc.gov]
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code [wikipedia.org]
Cornell University: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text [cornell.edu]
And many, many other places. I recommend the Cornell site, as it's much easier to navigate than the others.
State Law:
Each state has its own code of laws. Some, perhaps most, perhaps all are available online. You can dig around state government websiites if you want, but apparently, you can see them all at:
http://codes.findlaw.com/ letter state abbreviation>/ [findlaw.com]
For example:
Alabama: http://codes.findlaw.com/al/ [findlaw.com]
Colorado: http://codes.findlaw.com/co/ [findlaw.com]
Florida: http://codes.findlaw.com/fl/ [findlaw.com]
Massachussetts: http://codes.findlaw.com/ma/ [findlaw.com]
West Virginia: http://codes.findlaw.com/wv/ [findlaw.com]
Local/Municipal codes are located wherever the municipality posts their laws. You're on your own for that.
Courts and legislatures strike down, modify and otherwise change the law all the time. How do I know that published laws are valid as published?
That's a great question! According to Nolo.com [nolo.com]:
And if a law has been modified or struck down by the courts, Nolo.com has this to say [nolo.com]:
Presumably, when laws are changed or invalidated by courts, the relevant jurisdictions will update their published codes accordingly. If they don't, they're not doing their jobs and should be fired or voted out, and shamed.
As a general rule, recently published laws are probably valid as they are published. Older ones, perhaps less so. For most people, that's plenty. However, if there's a controversial law that you're concerned about, or something either arcane or complicated that you need to deal with, it's probably not a bad idea to consult with an attorney who has been admitted to the bar in the jurisdiction involved.
If you're wondering whether or not walking into a bank, handing the teller a piece of paper (not a check or a withdrawal slip) that says, "Fill the bag with the contents of your cash drawer," and flashing a gun is bank robbery, the answer is *yes*.
If you're wondering if you can plant giant ferns on your lawn, you might need to check with the municipal code.
As to why many people are ignorant of how government (at all levels) works in the US, much of it has to do with either poor schooling or poor learning. I was taught the basics of our system of government in primary and middle school, with more detail coming in high school.
If civics [wikipedia.org] isn't taught at your kids' schools, you should get on the school board to do their jobs. Alternatively, you could teach your kids yourself -- even if you don't know yourself, the information is out there.
I was going to include George Carlin's wonderful observation [goodreads.com], but it's not really relevant. Even stupid people can learn this stuff. It's not that hard.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @06:44AM
Evidently it is too hard for arcz. Poor bastard! Poor Sorry Bastard! We will all pray for him, that he might grow a pair, and come to some understanding of the Law. Until then, I hold him in the same regard as I do Francis, the poor Soylentil who always started his posts by saying " I don't know, but . . . " Total ignoramous. Kind of like Runaway2956! Maybe arcz can grow to the point where he has insightful or at least interesting comments to contribute to SoylentNews, but we are not even close to that right now. Learn some stuff, arcz! Challenge your preconceptions! And, fuch yourself up your own arse! Wanker!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @02:16PM (11 children)
Really? Try teaching the full tax code to someone of average intelligence. The best you're going to manage is rote memorization after several months of effort; you will never get full understanding.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @04:21PM (10 children)
Like languages, both human and programming, the law doesn't require *full understanding*. Rather it requires a basic understanding of syntax, grammar and vocabulary. References (dictionaries, thesauruses, style guides, manuals, etc.) provide details. And the more you work with a language (or a particular legal code), the better you will become with them.
And if you don't have the time/energy/wherewithal to learn a particular human language, programming language or legal code, you hire a translator, software developer or attorney (or accountant in the case of a tax code).
I know you're not really so obtuse, Buzzard. As such, I can only assume you're being deliberately so. Which makes one wonder why.
I won't speculate.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @04:35PM (7 children)
The problem there is you're arguing in favor of passing laws that Jane Doe with a 100 IQ is fundamentally incapable of understanding but you absolutely will throw her in jail for breaking them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @04:51PM (6 children)
Where, exactly, did I argue anything of the sort? I did two things:
1. Pointed out where US codes of law might be found;
2. Advocated for civics to be taught in schools.
I didn't argue for (or against) any particular law or wording of laws.
If you want to put something in someone else's mouth, don't make it words in mine.
Perhaps this comment [soylentnews.org] can give you some ideas about that.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @04:59PM (5 children)
Thanks for asking. It's a logical extension of this statement:
Without the ability to acquire full understanding of the law, you cannot reasonably be expected to be able to follow it correctly. Yet we do expect just that at the moment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @05:11PM (4 children)
That's ridiculous on its face, Buzzard. You're smarter than that. As such, I can only assume you're attempting to troll here. Good luck with that.
Toodles!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @05:20PM (3 children)
No, I am simply and sincerely saying that laws should be written in a manner such that those required to follow them under threat of imprisonment can understand them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @05:57PM (2 children)
You won't get any argument about that from me.
I guess I misunderstood because that argument is orthogonal to the points I made.
To your point, I'd add that criminal law is often *much* less complex than civil law. What's more, while parties to a criminal case are guaranteed legal counsel (I won't address quality, although in some jurisdictions public defenders are drawn from the same pool as prosecutors -- which should be the norm rather than the exception, IMHO), parties to civil actions have no such guarantee.
And while criminal cases can put someone in prison, civil actions can often be quite devastating as well.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:45PM (1 child)
FYI, you actually can claim ignorance of the law as a reason you didn't follow it. The best example is the Cheek Defense from Cheek v. United States.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @09:08PM
Exceptions to the concept of Ignorantia juris non excusat [wikipedia.org] are quite narrow.
Generally they fit into one of two categories: lack of appropriate/timely notice of a new law (generally one that criminalizes behavior that is legal in most other places), or that the law requires "specific intent" [thefreedictionary.com] as an element of the crime.
Cheek v. United States [wikipedia.org] is a poor example of this, given that the SCOTUS essentially ruled that Cheek's defense (that he sincerely believed he wasn't required to file tax returns) could be considered a valid defense, and the trial court judge should not have instructed the jurors otherwise. They then remanded the case back to the trial court for re-trial. From the Wikipedia page linked above:
N.B.: IANAL
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @10:50PM (1 child)
But if you don't have at least a very good understanding of it, you're going to end up with a bunch of mediocre hacks who have no idea what they're doing, like we see with just about every subjective. Mathematics? Just a series of equations to be memorized. Our school system (some like to call it an "education system", but that term is misleading since it implies that education is happening to a significant degree) is not churning out innovators and critical thinkers; we're churning out drones.
Do I have any confidence that our school system, as it is, can teach civics properly? No. I don't see why anyone would, either. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to teach it, but plenty of other subjects such as mathematics are not being taught either; civics is not special.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday February 19 2018, @04:52AM
The quality of schools varies widely in the United States. If you live in a place with crappy schools and you have children, you're doing them a disservice and are probably a bad parent in other ways too. Shame on you!
That said, questioning the quality of schools doesn't invalidate my point. In fact, I addressed just that in my initial comment [soylentnews.org]:
I managed to acquire a reasonable knowledge of civics and the basics of our legal system in US public schools. If I can do it, so can others. And I'm sure they do.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by http on Friday February 16 2018, @04:21PM (4 children)
You said it yoruself,
The law ain't knowable by you without professional help or sacrificing more than your entire life to study. And even those steps offer no guarantees.
Because people are sane, they don't study all the laws. They are, literally, ignorant. This has nothing to do with their schooling or their learning ethic. They're making the reasonable gamble that planting giant ferns probably isn't illegal wherever the heck they are and the penalties would be less than financing a lifetime in a library. If you consulted the law books for every action you wanted to take, you'd never do anything of any substance. And in some cases, inaction might be illegal, too.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @04:45PM (3 children)
I know enough that I've never been arrested, indicted or convicted for a felony. And, more importantly, I know enough to know when I need the assistance of a professional.
I'm ignorant (except from a basic physics standpoint) of the details of jet engine design/engineering. Does that mean I should spend nearly a decade learning that stuff before boarding a plane?
I'm also ignorant (again, except for the basic physics) of the details of building construction. Does that mean that unless I learn how to design and build high rises, I should live and sleep outdoors?
Which is why it's important that an education include civics, so that one has a base to understand how government and the law work.
What's your beef here, other than to be obnoxious? I didn't even mention your girlfriend this time.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by http on Friday February 16 2018, @08:40PM (2 children)
The bemused curiousity here stems from the fact that you're coming from the position that the law is knowable, while glossing over your own evidence that it is not, without a life sacrificed to constant study and ongoing research about changes.
In actual practice, the most innocent of activities have the potential to be illegal in the USA. Three Felonies a Day [amazon.com] explains it fairly well. The sheer volume of law prohibits knowledge.
Your comparisons to jets and buildings fail as analogies. A better way of putting it is, unless you know how to build and design high rises, don't sell designs for high rises to construction contractors. And while there might be direct consequences, the state is not going to blame and punish you for boarding an unsafe airplane.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 16 2018, @09:09PM (1 child)
You're putting words in my mouth. You are not welcome to do so.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @11:09PM
How about grasshoppers? They may be a bit surprising but they're also crunchy and nutritious.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Monday February 19 2018, @11:13PM
One thing an attorney pointed out to me was that laws act more like 'patches' than additions to the text of the legal code. Are there websites/efforts that provide a sort of revision control with visual differences for the legal codes? Even though they're subject to interpretation in a court of law, it would be helpful to see how and where the legal code changes with various laws and acts.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday February 16 2018, @08:53AM (1 child)
If you don't have Law & Order, you don't have a country. Very important that people understand the law & follow it.
The story about Richard Spencer, I tweeted under that one. To tell people about a very special case called Widmar v Vincent. And along came a Downmodder with a Redundant Mod for me. Nothing about the case in the story. Nothing about it in the other tweets. But, "-1, Redundant"! Very unfair. And dumb. I love the poorly educated. Usually, I love them. But not when they try to SILENCE my message!!!!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @04:31PM
I agree. But only the original. Not that SVU, Criminal Intent or Trial By Jury crap!
The real question is which assistant DA [afterellen.com] would you rather be fucking?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @02:25PM
It would be nice to know if there is a specific incident you refer to. Besides that I completely agree with your education proposal. Law that is not followed is a useless law, unless just used as a cash cow, like red light cameras. And that's a filthy perversion.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday February 23 2018, @05:23PM
For the same reason we can't get people to know and follow common sense.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 26 2018, @07:39AM
So technically, one could take the rules as they presently exist, and over say an 80 year lifespan, read them all at rough 7 pages a day. But the changes in those rules and the various bureaucratic actions such as review hearings, executive orders/memorandum, etc are recently up to around 50-100k per year. That's roughly 150-300 pages per day though most of it is probably junk.
Worse, this is increasing at what appears to be crudely an exponential rate. Even if you can keep up now with the niches you care about, exponential growth means, you won't be able to in the long run.