Too Much Crime & Too Many Laws ??
What’s the solution. Increased enforcement. But we can’t, we don’t have enough police and jails and the courts are over crowed now. The simple solution is cut the number of laws. Make the ones remaining easy to understand because they are basic. Then enforce the you know what out of them. Is that possible ? If there are half the number of laws then there should be twice the number of police available to enforce the remaining ones.
The idea also is to jump on the “little” laws. Littering, jay walking, petty larceny. Enforce these hard, make the penalty small, but also follow thru on the payment of the policy. Set up real community service. Keep the first offenders off the record sheets, except to the judges. We don’t want to brand a person a career criminal for jay walking. We just don’t want him or her jay walking. $10 or 1 hour on the service “chain gang”. Make it at least inconvenient to break the little crimes again. We of course have to still concentrate on the violent crimes. But look at all the police we have and they are still working on the small type crimes. Give them the ability to put penalties on the things they deal with. I don’t know how it would work in the specific. But in the overall picture, we need to not make a federal case out of the small stuff. Not get the kids set up for a life of crime. We need to make it a bit humiliating and inconvenient to do things that are disrespectful of others. Not just the kids either, but concentrate on them. They are the ones we have a chance to help the most.
In our lawyer crazy society, run by government populated mainly with lawyers, we have been smoozed into believing that if we pass a law against something then that something will go away. When it doesn’t then we pass another law. Well we have simply accumulated too many laws. We have forgotten that we also have to enforce those laws for them to be effective. By passing more laws simply means we have less ability to enforce current laws. And more leeway to wiggle out of being punished.
Lawyers will say we need the extra laws to make them less complicated, more specific to the specific wrong. Make the sentencing fairer. I call that “dumbing down” the judicial role in law. Are judges and juries too slow to understand the difference between premeditated murder and unpremeditated. Cannot a judge pick a sentence that fit’s the crime? Cannot he pick a sentence better than a bureaucrat somewhere else safe from the repercussions of a bad sentence. A person dies through some fault of another, why is it necessary to have such a complicated set of laws about it. Why not let the jury say guilty or not, then the judge decide on the punishment. Kill the cold blooded serial child killer for example. For the man who negligently causes death through non premeditative actions would receive a lighter sentence based upon the local situations, decided by a local judge.
As a conservative, I believe the laws should be broad and vague enough for people through their judges to make sure the punishment fit’s the crime. If they don’t fit the crime, vote out the local judge, don’t pass more laws thinking that will solve the problem. For those of you who think that the law would not be served in such a system because you’re thinking about all the possible wrong decisions: just look at what our current way has evolved into. Also look what happens when leaders are chosen by a bunch of local individuals. Why in the last election alone nearly 50% of the choices were wrong. Yet we rarely hear for a repeal of democracy. I’ll leave it up to you to decide what 50% was wrong. Some may think that we could just pass a law and say that it is illegal to vote for the wrong candidate. All radicals secretly wish for that. Luckily at least so far we have the same amount of nuts on each side. Lol.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative