Do laws deter?

[leftsock]

We have a couple of ideas here that are separate.

1. Do laws deter crime?

Laws do, in fact, deter crime.

What we're talking about is whether enacting a law can prevent victimization (crime).

Well, no. The probability of being caught and severity of punishment deters crime. There are plenty of scantly-enforced laws that don't prevent the crimes they create; example: speeding. There are also plenty of acts that are wrong by their nature, and laws concerning them define their punishment, but don't make them any more "wrong" than they already are; example: murder.

2. Should there be a law (thus creating a crime) if there is no possibility of a victim? That no other person is or could be deprived of their life, liberty, or property.

There's probably a law making parking against the lawful flow of traffic on a two-way residential street a crime, but I don't know who the victim is.

Our speeding example again: if one is driving at a speed above the limit, say 60 in the 55 zone, yet in a controlled manner, who is the victim or potential victim?

 

[OneBadV8]

Our speeding example again: if one is driving at a speed above the limit, say 60 in the 55 zone, yet in a controlled manner, who is the victim or potential victim?

You have to stop somewhere though. If you allow people to drive 60, might as well make the limit 60. but then it'll just keep going as people continue to drive over the limit.

Maybe with all the new safety features speed limits should be raised, but you should still get ticketed/pulled over for going over. There just has to be a limit that should be enforced. Otherwise it'll be like the autoban and poeple will abuse it and bad things will happen

 

[ATOMonkey]

Not really. Responsible people will drive in a responsible manner. Irresponsible people will drive in an irresponsible manner. Posted signs do little to change that behavior.

On my residential street with a posted 30 mph zone and 4 stop signs from one end to the other, you get the entire range of driving. From people going as fast as they can without stopping at any signs to people just cruising at 20 mph and doing the full 5 second stop.

The signs don't seem to make a difference.

Most people drive cautiously at a reduced speed and at least slow down at the stop signs.

 

[dross]

I think laws do deter crime. The one against jumping off really tall buildings seems to work.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think laws do deter crime. The one against jumping off really tall buildings seems to work.

It's instantly enforcable as well.

 

[jsharmon7]

Well, no. The probability of being caught and severity of punishment deters crime. There are plenty of scantly-enforced laws that don't prevent the crimes they create; example: speeding.

Again, you're getting caught up on technicalities. WHY is speeding an infraction? Because it creates a dangerous situation. We don't have a limit on speeds because we were bored one day and wanted to create some arbitrary number and then write people tickets for randomly exceeding it. The reason we enforce speeding is because of the dangerous situation it creates rather than for the fun of creating an arbitrary number to hassle people. We're not so much interested in the "crime" of speeding as in the prevention of the hazard it creates on the roadway. Now if you want to get rid of the "crimes" of speeding, following too closely, not signaling lane changes, not having headlights, etc. and create a broad violation of "dangerous driving" then go for it, but it's essentially the same thing as separating them.

 

[Lex Concord]

Humans, by nature, tend to make decisions based on cost-benefit analysis. This includes most crimes.

The inputs to such a decision are so highly variable that, while the punishment portion of some laws may have a deterrent effect, there is no way to predict what level of success any given law should have.

If punishments are to be harsh enough to "ensure" deterrence (people will still kill in fits of rage, even if only a tin can is handy, and even if Judge Dredd awaits), then laws must be pared down to the barest minimum to ensure they only target events in which actual harm has transpired against a person or a person's property, which includes the right to unfettered enjoyment thereof.

I do not trust our government, or any other, to successfully undertake such an endeavor.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

No, I dont believe Laws deter. I believe they "establish" what is socially acceptable in the eyes of the law.

I believe that some people are more suspect to crime, either genetically or emotionally have no restraint, and no amount of safe guarding, laws etc will prevent or deter crime.

 

[MikePapa1]

Do laws deter crime? No. Laws are the framework that defines what crime is. Someone mentioned marijuana laws and they, like Prohibition, are primary examples that prove that laws can, in fact, encourage crime. I can't remember who said it but as government, at all levels, criminalizes more and more behavior, we all become criminals. In fact, I was explaining the corrosive effect of "laws" on the law abiding to a prosecutor earlier this week. Almost none of us can go through a full day without violating at least one law. Sometimes we do so knowingly, like speeding, sometimes unknowingly. Either way, criminalizing ever increasing activities it makes us all a nation of law breakers.

Our laws should be rational, few and based upon maintaining an ordered liberty. They should be focused on preventing actual harm to others. Too much today is based upon the political class doing something to justify their own existence.

My believe is that prompt detection and sure, swift punishment will, in fact, deter many from criminal behavior, but law, by itself, will not do so. I say this as a criminal defense lawyer for more than 27 years.

 

[dross]

It's instantly enforcable as well.

Judge Gravity don't be playin'.

 

[Lex Concord]

Again, you're getting caught up on technicalities. WHY is speeding an infraction? Because it creates a dangerous situation. We don't have a limit on speeds because we were bored one day and wanted to create some arbitrary number and then write people tickets for randomly exceeding it. The reason we enforce speeding is because of the dangerous situation it creates rather than for the fun of creating an arbitrary number to hassle people. We're not so much interested in the "crime" of speeding as in the prevention of the hazard it creates on the roadway. Now if you want to get rid of the "crimes" of speeding, following too closely, not signaling lane changes, not having headlights, etc. and create a broad violation of "dangerous driving" then go for it, but it's essentially the same thing as separating them.

This would imply that when speed limits were reduced to 55 MPH across the nation (through federal coercion, of course - as if other means are ever employed), there was no pretense of doing so for safety, but for fuel economy and conservation.

Many speed limits are indeed arbitrary.

Whether statistical or engineering studies were done in the various states (with various speed limits - 66 is apparently more dangerous in OH than IN or MI?) to render the speed limits therein I don't know.

As G. Gordon Liddy was often fond of saying, the Interstate Highway System was engineered to be safe at 70 miles per hour for cars with the suspensions of the 1950s. Technology has improved dramatically since then, though the population has obviously grown and (in my opinion) driving skills have, for the most part, declined. Still, 80 MPH on 70 outside of Greencastle is no more inherently dangerous than 65 MPH in the same location. This will vary with congestion, road conditions, etc.

That being said, can speeding create a dangerous situation? It sure can, but an infraction isn't sufficient to deter many who would speed because the cost is not perceived to be high enough to offset the perceived benefit of getting somewhere faster.

So, in a nutshell, yes, the speed limits are arbitrary because, with so many variables and room for subjective judgment, a limit had to be set somewhere.

Montana, which is admittedly sparsely populated, has a speed limit of "Reasonable and Prudent" on its highways. I once read an interview with a Montana Trooper who said that, generally, over 100 MPH would get someone pulled over. I'm guessing if it's Rick Mears in a ZR1, he might not get a ticket, though.

 

[Lex Concord]

It's instantly enforcable as well.

No, not instantly.

It is enforceable in t where

t = (building height / 9m/s/s)

Still a short trip, even with wind resistance

 

[leftsock]

Again, you're getting caught up on technicalities. WHY is speeding an infraction? Because it creates a dangerous situation. We don't have a limit on speeds because we were bored one day and wanted to create some arbitrary number and then write people tickets for randomly exceeding it. The reason we enforce speeding is because of the dangerous situation it creates rather than for the fun of creating an arbitrary number to hassle people. We're not so much interested in the "crime" of speeding as in the prevention of the hazard it creates on the roadway. Now if you want to get rid of the "crimes" of speeding, following too closely, not signaling lane changes, not having headlights, etc. and create a broad violation of "dangerous driving" then go for it, but it's essentially the same thing as separating them.

It's not a technicality, it's an important distinction to understand. I'm not trying to argue whether or not speeding should be a crime. I'm saying that the laws that make speeding illegal don't deter the act. A unenforced law might as well not exist because it doesn't deter the act of the crime it creates.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Oh no you didn't approximate the acceleration due to gravity at 9 m/s^2. All engineers everywhere have just had a simultaneous stroke and must now take a moment of silence to repair the space-time continuum.

Next time, please use at least 9.8 m/s*s. This will sufficiently reduce the harm suffered to mechanical engineers everywhere. Thanks,

No, not instantly.

It is enforceable in t where

t = (building height / 9m/s/s)

Still a short trip, even with wind resistance

 

[jsharmon7]

This would imply that when speed limits were reduced to 55 MPH across the nation (through federal coercion, of course - as if other means are ever employed), there was no pretense of doing so for safety, but for fuel economy and conservation.

Many speed limits are indeed arbitrary.

Whether statistical or engineering studies were done in the various states (with various speed limits - 66 is apparently more dangerous in OH than IN or MI?) to render the speed limits therein I don't know.

As G. Gordon Liddy was often fond of saying, the Interstate Highway System was engineered to be safe at 70 miles per hour for cars with the suspensions of the 1950s. Technology has improved dramatically since then, though the population has obviously grown and (in my opinion) driving skills have, for the most part, declined. Still, 80 MPH on 70 outside of Greencastle is no more inherently dangerous than 65 MPH in the same location. This will vary with congestion, road conditions, etc.

That being said, can speeding create a dangerous situation? It sure can, but an infraction isn't sufficient to deter many who would speed because the cost is not perceived to be high enough to offset the perceived benefit of getting somewhere faster.

So, in a nutshell, yes, the speed limits are arbitrary because, with so many variables and room for subjective judgment, a limit had to be set somewhere.

Montana, which is admittedly sparsely populated, has a speed limit of "Reasonable and Prudent" on its highways. I once read an interview with a Montana Trooper who said that, generally, over 100 MPH would get someone pulled over. I'm guessing if it's Rick Mears in a ZR1, he might not get a ticket, though.

See I agree with you that driving 80 mph in a 65 mph zone isn't inherently that much more dangerous, but only IF you are the only one on the road. The vast difference in speeds is the really dangerous part. There is no blanket solution so instead we have to find a reasonable speed for EVERYONE and punish as best we can those who exceed it. If you want to argue that speed limits should be raised then you'll meet no resistance from me. Until they are raised though it's what we have to deal with.

It's not a technicality, it's an important distinction to understand. I'm not trying to argue whether or not speeding should be a crime. I'm saying that the laws that make speeding illegal don't deter the act. A unenforced law might as well not exist because it doesn't deter the act of the crime it creates.

So you honestly don't think that speed limits deter people from speeding? Do you routinely see people driving at 120 mph? Why do you think that is? My guess is that they are deterred by the idea of attracting lots of attention and getting a ticket. With no laws against it, why wouldn't people do it?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

See I agree with you that driving 80 mph in a 65 mph zone isn't inherently that much more dangerous, but only IF you are the only one on the road. The vast difference in speeds is the really dangerous part. There is no blanket solution so instead we have to find a reasonable speed for EVERYONE and punish as best we can those who exceed it. If you want to argue that speed limits should be raised then you'll meet no resistance from me. Until they are raised though it's what we have to deal with.



So you honestly don't think that speed limits deter people from speeding? Do you routinely see people driving at 120 mph? Why do you think that is? My guess is that they are deterred by the idea of attracting lots of attention and getting a ticket. With no laws against it, why wouldn't people do it?

Hate to trample on your argument, but I drive between 50 -60 when I can get away with it because that's where I get the best gas mileage.

 

[leftsock]

So you honestly don't think that speed limits deter people from speeding?

No! People break the speed limit all the time! I dare you to drive at or under the speed limit on the highway; you'll get ran over by people speeding!

Do you routinely see people driving at 120 mph? Why do you think that is? My guess is that they are deterred by the idea of attracting lots of attention and getting a ticket.

Yes! You're making my point! It isn't because there's an arbitrary law that makes some action a crime, it's because they'll be caught and punished!

Many factors go into the way people make their decisions. Concerning crime and punishment, some factors to consider are the severity of a punishment and the chance of getting caught. A great example is speeding, since everyone does it. The possibility of getting a ticket is relatively low, and the penalty, a few hundred dollar fine, is relatively insignificant. Now, if the police pulled over everyone who sped and executed drivers on the spot, speeding would cease.

In your scenario, going 120mph, one increases their likelihood of being caught, and I believe such speeds would render an increased punishment from the usual ticket.

The speed limit doesn't deter people from going 5mph over the speed limit. While it isn't any less illegal, the likelihood of being stopped is very low, and the ticket isn't very severe.

 

[abnk]

We already know for a fact that tighter gun laws DOES NOT lower crime rates.

You heard it here first, folks. Gun control actually does in fact work.

Very strict gun laws seem to work great in Japan. Why couldn't we do the same here? Because we are to selfish to give our firearms for the benefit of the greater good.

 

[abnk]

What makes something a crime?

While there are many basic acts that everyone knows are crimes, such as infringing upon another's life, liberty, or property, many of the crimes that we currently have in our society are only crimes because we have laws written for them. Marijuana is our modern example. Currently, it's illegal to possess marijuana, and it is so because we have a law that makes it that way, but this wasn't always the case. Marijuana laws have flip-flopped between being legal and illegal several times over the past hundred years. So depending on when one lived and possessed marijuana, they may or may not have been committing a crime.

We have to understand that, by their nature, laws don't deter crime, laws make crime.

This isn't really about the definition of crime. I am arguing the fact the punishment for certain behavior would steer most people away from that behavior. To use your marijuana example, more people are using it where it is being legalized.

 

[abnk]

I believe that recent history has shown that in cities with tougher gun laws crime and violence actually increased. Look at the mess in Chicago for a prime example.

Laws deter law abiding citizens. Laws do not deter criminals who by their nature commit violations of the law. Harsher punishments have not historically deterred crime.

Really? Do you think adultery and promiscuity are as prevalent in Islamic countries as here, in the US? To me that's proof that harsh punishment does deter the behavior it punishes. Of course, it will never deter 100%, but it works. Chicago laws are not harsh enough.