laws and morality

I love the law.

Well, to be more accurate, I love the law as it applies to other people - but again, that's a whole other post...

For four years I studied profiling.

I'm completely fascinated by anyone that can look at a crime scene and determine, sight unseen of the perpetrator, what type of person committed the act.

That's nothing short of brilliant to me.

If you want a perfect example of what I'm talking about, go rent the movie, "Citizen X". It's a true story about a Russian serial killer. It's done accurately and brilliantly. It doesn't glorify serial killers or candy-coat any aspect of trying to find one.

For logical, practical and mom reasons, I was unable to join the FBI to pursue it as a career before the age cut off date.

That lead to studying the law.

I've completed 6 of my 10 sections on getting my paralegal certificate. The more I thought about that, the more I disliked the idea. Why would I spend all my time doing the grunt work without ever being eligible to try a case in court? It also binds my freedom of being able to advise anyone legally as well. That, coupled with it not even being a necessary certificate in this state equated to wasting time to me.

...and we all know how I feel about that.
So I took other law related courses in college instead.

Now, about court. There is NO bigger high to me than when I'm in a court setting. To actually be able to try a case so important that it could save someones life, well, that's the pinnacle to me.

Sign me up.

I've never tried crack, but I can't conceive of even crack producing a better high than me being in court.

Not to imply that I'm against the death penalty. I do think that's warranted at times, just not as often as it's handed out. I'll get to that though.

It bothers me when extra laws are added to the books. Extra laws are added to the book every single solitary DAY.

Do we need a law that prohibits people using their phone while driving? No. We already have existing laws that say if you're acting reckless driving, for WHATEVER REASON - you will be pulled over and can be either fined or jailed.

For those that know how to walk and chew gum at the same time, this is just unnecessary. There are people that can do two things at once and there are those that can't. You know who you are. If you can't, you should know better than to be on the phone while you drive.

Does it lower your defenses?
Yes.

We haven't outlawed singing to the radio or having conversations in your car with people. What's the difference? There isn't one.

We don't need a law that says, "it's against the law to drive recklessly" and a separate law that states, "it's against the law to drive recklessly because your dumb ass was on the phone and you can't do two things at once."

Really.
It's not necessary.
Simply enforcing the laws that already exist is enough.

Laws should also not be based on morality.
since I'm on a morality kick this week...
Laws should be based on the betterment of society.

Did you know that until 1984 it wasn't against the law for a man to rape his wife?
1984.
In America.
A m e r i c a.

That's pathetic.

A stranger on the street was afforded more consideration that you were, as a woman, in your own home.

There's something wrong with that picture.

A marriage certificate is a legal and binding contract with the state. At no time should a contract between parties result in ones loss of basic human rights - and it be deemed legal and binding.

What the fuck is that shit?

If some stranger is raping you and trying to beat you to death in your own house, you have a right to defend yourself. You even have the right to defend someone else. It's called, aptly, "Defense of others."

Sure as I'm sitting here though, if you killed your husband for raping and beating you in your own home before 1984 - you had very little recourse. Those women are probably still sitting in prison.

Again, what the fuck is that.
I end that with a period because it's not really a question.

There was no real reason for me bringing that point up, it's just something I learned recently and it still pisses me off every time I think about it.

Going back to morals, laws and the betterment of society.

In my never very humble opinion because I think that concept is over-rated, laws should not be based on morals. Morals change. Constantly.

Instead, I propose that laws should be based on what is better for society.

Is it better for society that we have a bunch of pedophiles running around getting 6 month sentences for raping a child? No. We are well aware of the studies that show that violence and molestation literally changes a persons DNA.

It changes their DNA.
Forever.

It gives the propensity to serve as a trigger for: repeated violent behavior, antisocial personality disorders, it can lead to a lifetime of physical trauma, difficulty with academic performance, self-control issues, self-image issues, a decline in social relationships, anger, anxiety, poorer cognitive and language skills, self-destructive behavior, hyperactivity, truancy, inability to express feeling, dissociative tendencies, depression, drug and/or alcohol abuse, a predisposition to emotional disturbance, difficulty trusting others and mental illness - to name a few things off the top of my head.

That's just what it can do to an individual.
ONE TIME.
One incident can lead to all of that.

The financial costs are many as well.
The mental and physical ramifications are astounding.

Think about it: therapist co-pays, psychiatric evaluations, medications, hospital visits, police pay, EMT wages, physician premiums, physical therapy costs, welfare and social service costs - to name a few off the top of my head.

I am not saying that people that have been abused are in any way, shape or form - lesser.

They are not.
Nor is it their fault.
Child abuse is not a child's fault.
Never has been, never will be.

This, however, allowed to continue - goes against the betterment of society. And for what? So someone can feel a moment of empowerment? So that ONE individual can temporarily have some self-serving euphoria?

The bad outweighs that person's fleeting sense of entitlement.

All the things that can result from someone abusing a child flies right in the face of something being better for society.

Therefore, it IS and SHOULD be against the law.

The second part to that conclusion of mine is: law sentencing. Does it make any sense to have someone who causes that much damage get as little as 3 months or 5 years of probation? No. That does not serve society.

I haven't worked out my stance on this entirely, but so far I think that sentencing should be based on damage inflicted because when someone has been victimized - everyone suffers for it in some way; not just that individual.

Society as a whole suffers.

The notion that the death penalty is there to serve as a deterrent is just non-sense to me. I've heard that theory time and time again over the years - the whole, "why do we kill people to demonstrate that killing people is wrong?"

We don't.

It's not about that. It's not about bringing closure to anyone either. That's just a side benefit.

Criminal court is about crime and punishment.
Period.

It's not about what you might do in the future.
It's about what you've already done.

If you get the death penalty, it should be solely because after careful consideration - it is deemed that what you did violated our society so badly that there's no turning back. This should also be done on a case by case basis.

This is why it's always the state vs the accused.
It's not the victim vs the accused.

This takes the pressure off the victim as well. The victim is not a part of the deciding verdict. It's out of their hands.

The victim is a witness for the state.

You don't take someone that has been the victim of a crime and then hold them solely responsible for the criminal's loss of freedom. You also don't take the families of a wrongful death and have them walk around with the idea that they are also responsible for sending someone to their death - even if they feel its deserved.

You can't do that to people, they've been through enough.
They don't need that on their conscious.

There has been talk of giving people that rape children the death sentence. At present, the death sentence is reserved solely for 1st degree murderers.

The death penalty is designed for the worst of the worst - and right now, that's only 1st degree murderers. Not all murderers. Not second degree murderers. Not manslaughter; vehicular or otherwise - only 1st degree murderers.

I'm unsure if we should add other crimes to that list.
There is such a thing as a slippery slope.

If it was my child - I would want that person dead.
That's why I shouldn't even be considered.
It would be a conclusion based on my emotions.

and should said person ever see the light of day - he should change his name and move to another country because the courts would be far kinder and more lenient than I would EVER be... and he should still spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder... he'd be safer in prison... YEAH, I SAID IT!

This is why we have laws against vigilantism, for people like me.

Anyway, some people believe that keeping people alive and letting them think about what they've done for the rest of their life is a better option and more cruel.

This theory is flawed if you're dealing with someone without a conscious. Do you really think that serial killer has any issue sitting around glorifying what they've done in their heads?

One would have to actually be sorry for their crime for that to even be remotely effective. But again, it's not about that - it's not about cruelty. It's about what is best for society.

Passing morals aside, it's not better for society for someone to run around killing people. It's not better for society to have people running around molesting children. The ramifications are far reaching and too high.

The punishments should reflect the damage to all of us.