Punish the good, reward the bad!

Criminal law is there to act as a way of punishing those who have done wrong... to act as deterrent to would be criminals therefore protecting the public from crime. Law, by its very nature, takes away certain freedoms by imposing a set of rules... which most people accept due to the positive influence on society.

If someone breaks into your home it is criminal law that defines exactly what crime has been committed and what punishments the burglar should receive!

This, in theory, should then act as a deterrent to the next person who wishes to break into your home.

The law system is extremely complex... you would need years of study to understand the workings of the law and, even then, you would still require law books as reference!!

It is in its complexity that i feel the law has become lost... I will not pretend to be an expert on law (because i am not) nor will i claim to have done hours of research into the subject of law... This thread is merely my perception of law mixed with personal experiences and storys in the news. But this is my point...

The people that make laws, and enforce them, spend years studying! They go to expensive colleges and universities and spend hours reading books on the subject of law. Often from privileged backgrounds there is no doubt that these people are intelligent, articulate professionals.

However, although their years of studying, and their privileged backgrounds, have given them an understanding of the intricacies of the legal system; they have lacked one fundamental tool to aid them in the application of law... Experience!!!

How many of these people have lived on a housing estate with drug dealers as neighbours? How many have been beaten and robbed? Or had drunken yobs follow them home?

These people are often isolated by their money... They live in homes in the most expensive part of town behind iron gates and private security. They went to schools where the only drugs were the paracetamol kept in the nurses office! Now I’m not saying that they will never experience any form of crime... but you have to admit that the chances of these people experiencing crime is far less than that of the working class man!

Yet these people are the ones who make and enforce criminal law for the larger percentage of the population who have to experience crime every day!! Can they do this honestly and fairly when they have no real experience of crime?

I believe they cannot!!

And the reason for this is because i feel that society is fast going down the track of punishing those who defend their property and homes while offering no real deterent to those who commit crime...

Take this as an example...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

A businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs after his family were threatened has been jailed for 30 months.

The case prompted renewed debate over the level of force that house-holders can use against raiders.

The basic story behind this is that a man and his family were tied up by 3 armed robbers, threatened with knives, and the husband beaten in front of his family...

you can only imagine what was going through his mind... However, at some point during the ordeal, the husband managed to free himself and his brother and turned the tables... armed with a cricket bat and a metal pole they chased the robbers out of the house and into the street.

Eventually the caught up with one of the men and beat him so badly that he was left with mild brain damage!

OK... am i really supposed to feel sorry for the robber at this point??? This vile scumbag had just broken into a man’s home, threatened to kill his wife and children, and then beat the man in front of his family... If that was me, i would want to ensure that this criminal would NEVER be able to visit my family again!!!

Is that really unreasonable?? Considering the ordeal that the man had just been through!!
Even the judge at the trial praised him for his “courage” in defending his wife and three children from an attack!!! And then went on to sentence him to 30 months in prison!!!

And this is not the only such story... there are many example of people defending their homes against criminals only to then be prosecuted by the law!!! (The Tony Martin case being the most famous one in England)

A law created by people who have never experienced the nature of crime or the fear and terror of being a victim... People whos very intelligence over complicates that which should be simple!!

In my opinion these laws, that see people who defend themselves prosecuted, go against the very laws of nature!!

As a father and a husband it is my duty to protect my family whatever the cost... And because i have experienced crime i know that criminals DO visit the same homes. I have known people who have been burgled, on several occasions, and the police know that it is the same gang responsible every time... So can you blame people who react in a way that doesn’t correspond to what some oxford educated toff sees as fair and just??

I often wonder if this trend is an accidental one caused by the complexities of the legal system... or if it is a deliberate attempt to undermine honest, otherwise law-abiding, people!

I myself have been a victim of this warped legal system... punished for defending my wife i now have a criminal record that affects my life...

For a criminal... a criminal record means nothing!! They don’t have to apply for jobs or worry about their reputation... but for me, it’s a nightmare!!!

As it stands... the law sucks!!





[edit on 19-4-2010 by Muckster]

Muckster, 'fraid I can't stand your thread title. Furthermore, ref what your signature, you know, if you say so.

Good topic, Muckster.

The biggest problem is, we the voters, continue to elect lawyers as our lawmakers. Huge mistake. They all love to hear themselves talk, have obnoxious egos and suffer delusions of grandeur.

The law is complex only because they want it to be. That is how they secure their way of life. For the most part, it is no longer about protecting the "good" from the "bad".

Regarding your take on the Brit, who was convicted for defending his home and family, I am, equally, perplexed. It is difficult for me to place blame, for what appears to be a complete travesty of justice, as I am not familiar with the UK's justice system. However, I am quite familiar with the US justice system, particularly that of the Great State of Texas (yes, that was a shameless plug).

In order to preserve true justice, it is, absolutely, necessary for a person to be held accountable for any physical harm, he/she inflicts upon another.
This is not to say, a person who does so in defense of himself/herself or another person, should be punished. Quite the contrary. That person deserves to be, publicly, exonerated by a jury of his peers.

But, this must be done by the jury (usually and appropriately the grand jury) and not by law enforcement. The role of law enforcement, in cases of self defense, and for that matter any criminal complaint, is to gather evidence and record the facts, to be presented to a grand jury and/or court.

Without that process of oversight, the lines between self defense, vigilantism and criminal are indiscernible.

I do feel sorry for you... your one of the few who have half a brain over there. Here, we just shoot the intruders and have the police haul them away, at least in most cases. Sure we have a "higher" gun death than Europe but half of those are suicide, then subtract justifiable homicide and police shootings, and if you really want to, subtract inner-city gang shootings and you really don't have much left (especially considering that 1/3 or 100 million of us are "legally" armed. Even if you count suicides the "body" count is less than auto fatalities and a fraction of deaths caused by "legal" pharmaceuticals.

Anyway, That is WHY we defend it so venomously. We don't want to turn into you.....

www.worldfreeinternet.net...

WHEN LEGAL DRUGS KILL 100,000 Die Every Year: By Claudia Kalb
NEWSWEEK
But in a study published last week in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers found that adverse reactions to prescription drugs may rank somewhere between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death in the United States. Dr. Bruce Pomeranz, a professor at the University of Toronto, and his team analyzed 39 studies conducted in American hospitals over four decades (the study was funded by a scientific-research group). Of 33 million patients admitted to hospitals in 1994, more than 100,000 died from toxic reactions to medications that were administered properly, either before or after they were hospitalized. And more than 2 million suffered serious side effects.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by infolurker]

reply to post by WTFover


Well said and explained!


It is also a crime many of our own war hero's (military) are getting the same treatment, for example; Michael Behenna. You have to hear this story!


(MichaelSavage.com)

Read Vicki Behenna's latest letter

reply to post by TheDailyPlanet


Sorry... i don’t understand??



reply to post by WTFover

The law is complex only because they want it to be. That is how they secure their way of life. For the most part, it is no longer about protecting the "good" from the "bad".

Very true... If you think about it, the Law should be a very simple thing...




reply to post by infolurker

I do feel sorry for you... your one of the few who have half a brain over there. Here, we just shoot the intruders and have the police haul them away

LOL

If only

Unfortunately we have people over here who are far more concerned with blame than responsibility!!!

People are stupid enough to think that by banning guns you will prevent crime!!! How many criminals do they honestly think apply for a gun license???

All banning guns achieves is disarming the law-abiding people while allowing the criminals to have a free reign over them

You might wanna check put another thread i started on the issue of British gun law...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In my understanding criminal law is in itself corrupt, it is there to punish those who have violated a legal code. Doing such is very wrong, for it means that crime only fails to happen because criminals fear punishment. To solve crime at its root requires us to have no laws, to understand crime, and to fight it at its core. Laws are there to punish, rule by punishment is barbaric, and thus laws are barbaric. A society where man does no crime because they do not want to do crime is far superior to a society that does no crime because criminals fear the punishment.

With that in mind, do you now understand why laws do not work? They rule by fear alone, and fear is the tool of a tyrant. Such is the opinion of a Confucius scholar such as myself, and as I live in a society that has no legal code I have seen work.

With my deep respect,
~ Darcia