I get what you're saying about the problems of offloading, but getting a fresh start in a new place might be just the thing for some people. It'd just be a more serious version of your local narcissist that can't keep the same set of friends for more than twenty minutes. j/k Exile would be just the thing were we not very much interested in other places and cultures. Now we need to treat the world as being one place with one people (for some purposes anyway) and exile won't work anymore.
I engage in "unlawful conduct" regularly. I've smoked pot. I've downloaded songs off Napster and Kazaa and BitTorrent. I've violated copyright. I used to run red lights. I speed when everybody else is speeding. I've bought liquor for minors. Who the hell hasn't done these things? When the laws are effed up, why should unlawful conduct be something to denounce?
I hear you on holding onto a perpretator indefinitely and questioning if that's a good use of a society's resources. I still find killing repugnant and would prefer to go far out of my way to avoid it.
You're kind of missing the point re: denunciation (and it used to be punish - evidently we got wussy in 1995). It's about denouncing the offense in question, not criminality generally.
In regard to the examples you offer: congratulations for supporting the illegal drug trade, downloading is legal in Canada, running red lights is dangerous and your behavior was dumb, and interfering in other people's parental rights is the sort of thing that can get you into a nasty civil suit. The fact that people may do these things does not mean they shouldn't be illegal.
Me, I'd say if you get to the point where you can prove he did it to a standard even higher than that at criminal trials, to the Supreme Court, and let him use up his appeals? You've officially gone out of your way.
1. Why thank you. I'd grow my own but I can't be assed and don't have a safe place for it anyway.
2. Not for much longer, I imagine.
3. Yes to both. That was probably a poor example.
4. Parental rights? Give me a break. Just because parents by code of law have authority over their 17-18 year olds when they're out of the house doesn't make it right.
Gone out of the way, sure. But if capital punishment returns to a mainstream debate in this country, I'm on the "no" side. No government should have a codified right to end a person's life.
2. Well, yes, but the fact that the Conservatives ask for more when the Americans bend them over is hardly the fault of the current law. Complain when it's actually illegal.
4. Doesn't necessarily make it wrong, either. If you think the age of majority should be lower, that's one thing. But arguing random schmucks should be able to determine whether kids should get alcohol is unwise, IMO. Kids being able to determine whether they should get alcohol is routinely demonstrated to be unwise, too.
5. Governments can end people's lives in all kinds of exciting ways. War and martial law are just the two that spring to mind most quickly. Our government constitutionally has the right to end people's lives so long as it's fundamentally just - if you don't like that it can do that, you've got a problem.
Furthermore, it wouldn't be the government doing it - the judiciary are separate from the government. The government might be able to determine WHAT could get you killed (though they can already do that), but another organization would decide if it could happen.
Can't the legislative branch reorganize the judiciary or legislate the judiciary out of existence? And who appoints Supreme Court justices? And who pays the bills for the CA's office? They're a separate branch, yes, but still part of the government. People who think we live in an ideally-functioning democracy might even say we all are the government.
4. I do think the age of majority should be lower, perhaps as low as 16. It'd be a hard pull just to get it to 18 in provinces where it's 19, though. Hard to rally around a banner of "Let's let younger people have access to liquor!" I'd be tempted to put a provision in the law allowing clubs to only allow access to those 18+, but since the age of consent is 16, that's probably not necessary.
They can't legislate the judiciary out of existence. And you must remember that there is always a large difference between what can theoretically be done and what is likely to be done.
The feds appoint all judges above the provincial trial division.
There are decent arguments for raising the age of majority above eighteen (people are fairly stupid, after all) - it's only as low as it is because that's as low as it's practical to make it and there's a lot of history behind eighteen.
I could make arguments for raising the ages for driving and voting, but even though I was an idiot when I was 18, does that mean every 18-year-old is? And if you're old enough to go to university (and pay for it)...
I read an interesting article on this subject on the NY Times website. Are you on Google Plus? otherwise, remind me to link you to the article.
Basically, it argues for something like a graduated approach, because the actual age matters less than the proper build-up of responsibility and experience. It's not constructive to just confer rights upon a certain age, regardless of that age, because adolescents don't just spontaneously develop the hardware to handle stuff as an adult at some arbitrary age, making some people precocious or delayed.
I'm going to stop now and make you read the article yourself. ;-)
I engage in "unlawful conduct" regularly. I've smoked pot. I've downloaded songs off Napster and Kazaa and BitTorrent. I've violated copyright. I used to run red lights. I speed when everybody else is speeding. I've bought liquor for minors. Who the hell hasn't done these things? When the laws are effed up, why should unlawful conduct be something to denounce?
I hear you on holding onto a perpretator indefinitely and questioning if that's a good use of a society's resources. I still find killing repugnant and would prefer to go far out of my way to avoid it.
Reply
In regard to the examples you offer: congratulations for supporting the illegal drug trade, downloading is legal in Canada, running red lights is dangerous and your behavior was dumb, and interfering in other people's parental rights is the sort of thing that can get you into a nasty civil suit. The fact that people may do these things does not mean they shouldn't be illegal.
Me, I'd say if you get to the point where you can prove he did it to a standard even higher than that at criminal trials, to the Supreme Court, and let him use up his appeals? You've officially gone out of your way.
Reply
2. Not for much longer, I imagine.
3. Yes to both. That was probably a poor example.
4. Parental rights? Give me a break. Just because parents by code of law have authority over their 17-18 year olds when they're out of the house doesn't make it right.
Gone out of the way, sure. But if capital punishment returns to a mainstream debate in this country, I'm on the "no" side. No government should have a codified right to end a person's life.
Reply
2. Well, yes, but the fact that the Conservatives ask for more when the Americans bend them over is hardly the fault of the current law. Complain when it's actually illegal.
4. Doesn't necessarily make it wrong, either. If you think the age of majority should be lower, that's one thing. But arguing random schmucks should be able to determine whether kids should get alcohol is unwise, IMO. Kids being able to determine whether they should get alcohol is routinely demonstrated to be unwise, too.
5. Governments can end people's lives in all kinds of exciting ways. War and martial law are just the two that spring to mind most quickly. Our government constitutionally has the right to end people's lives so long as it's fundamentally just - if you don't like that it can do that, you've got a problem.
Furthermore, it wouldn't be the government doing it - the judiciary are separate from the government. The government might be able to determine WHAT could get you killed (though they can already do that), but another organization would decide if it could happen.
Reply
4. I do think the age of majority should be lower, perhaps as low as 16. It'd be a hard pull just to get it to 18 in provinces where it's 19, though. Hard to rally around a banner of "Let's let younger people have access to liquor!" I'd be tempted to put a provision in the law allowing clubs to only allow access to those 18+, but since the age of consent is 16, that's probably not necessary.
Reply
The feds appoint all judges above the provincial trial division.
There are decent arguments for raising the age of majority above eighteen (people are fairly stupid, after all) - it's only as low as it is because that's as low as it's practical to make it and there's a lot of history behind eighteen.
Reply
Reply
otherwise, remind me to link you to the article.
Basically, it argues for something like a graduated approach, because the actual age matters less than the proper build-up of responsibility and experience. It's not constructive to just confer rights upon a certain age, regardless of that age, because adolescents don't just spontaneously develop the hardware to handle stuff as an adult at some arbitrary age, making some people precocious or delayed.
I'm going to stop now and make you read the article yourself. ;-)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment