| View Blog
|
|
|
|
| Law and Enforcement |
If a "law" is not enforced, than it is no law at all. When I said in my last post, that I would try to brainstorm the basic ideas for a minimalistic judicial system, I didn't realize what I was setting myself up for. Without law, it is not government; without enforcenment, it is not law. Without limits to said enforcement, the law will tend to become tyrannical. After all, who will make truly just decisions immediatly after having been wronged? Therefore, let us try to set limits before anyone is angry or hurt. Having said that, how much authority should a state be allowed?
Given that I want multiple competing political systems I expect that each system would have its own answers. To prevent people from breaking laws, the punishment for an offense should be listed in the law it offends. No one should be held for a law that cannot be shown to the citizen, and it must have been a law before the arrest. To keep tyranny at bay, whenever a new law is passed the people should have the option of breaking there contract and switching to another system. No law should be passed without a program to make sure that those voting on the law fully understand ALL of its implications, and that the people will be able to be educated on its uses.
As for the execution of the punishment, if your people agreed to a death penalty in your system (which is the most extreme punishment that comes to mind) than the members of your system are responsible for how you uphold your laws. I do not commend this as a good idea, as not only will it bring negative attention to yourself if caught by the "officially recognized state" (i.e. your countries established government) but it is dangerous to grant any group the sanctioned power to murder.
For myself, I would like to do something the eighth amendment of the US Constitution failed to do. The founders were smart enough to say that punishment should not be excessive, cruel nor unusual, what they failed to do was legally define all of that. It looks good on paper, but unless an actual limit is set, than the limit is whatever government can get away with, and with all the spin doctors, and black sights that leaves a lot that we can get away with.
For the financial boundaries no person should pay over 50% more than the damage they caused (which depending on the damage could be quite a hefty number), except in cases of murder. In the case of murder if it was a provider, the murderer must pay the income that the provider gave as a general constant in addition to the initial fines, and family counseling fees. If a child with siblings was murdered, the siblings school should be payed for, on top of the family counseling fees.
If one is killed in the process of attempting murder or, rape, than the there should be no legal action taken against the citizen. Self-defense against unlawful or life-endangering activity is a right. On the other hand, they must be able to demonstrate in a court of law, that this was the case in their killing. Officials would lose their job if they could not demonstrate in a court of law that this was to save a life that was in the process of being endangered.
As for the authority to uphold ones own laws, when citizens sign up, they should first be able to demonstrate understanding of the laws that they are consenting to live under. Until they can demonstrate this understanding, no applicant should be made an official citizen. In regards to child citizenship, the children should live by the same laws that their parents do, until they are able to move out and pass a citizenship test.
As far as other governments going too far, so long as the people involved are the ones who take responsibility in costs and actions, than the laws that people knowingly agree to are there own business. If you do something that is wrong under US Law, I cannot guarantee defense, that is something that each government system should work out for itself.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| Views: 116
Email This to a Friend 
