• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How should we legislate laws?

radcen said:
It probably does take as much time. And I have noticed that lawmakers prefer new laws over updating existing laws. The cynical part of me says that is because they can point to the new law and tell their gullible constituents, "See what I did.". It's kind of six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, though I'd prefer updating whenever possible to keep redundancy to a minimum.

I don't get your #2. If it's not illegal, it wouldn't be before a judge to begin with. If there's a need then people will be clamoring for it to be illegal. As far as a civil aspect, something doesn't have to be illegal to sue over. "Emotional distress" isn't illegal, so far as I know, and people sue for that all the time.
Click to expand...

Regarding my number 2 police arrest people based on their (many times incorrect) interpretation of the law. A recent example in NYC had to do with the NYPD interpreting NYC administrative law to classify hoverboards as motorized scooters which made them illegal to be used on NYC streets and side walks - something the NYPD even tweeted about right before Christmas. Unfortunately the NYPD, either purposefully or because someone there can't read, got it wrong since the law they referenced defines motorized scooters as having handlebars, which hoverboards don't have. Anyone cited by the NYPD for a hoverboard is not breaking the law.

So yeah people do get to go before judges for doing things that aren't illegal. In this case there's a glaring misinterpretation on the part of the NYPD but I can easily imagine cases where a PD could plausibly interpret a narrow law one way - the way leading arrest - and leaving it to the courts to figure out.
 
Gaius46 said:
Regarding my number 2 police arrest people based on their (many times incorrect) interpretation of the law. A recent example in NYC had to do with the NYPD interpreting NYC administrative law to classify hoverboards as motorized scooters which made them illegal to be used on NYC streets and side walks - something the NYPD even tweeted about right before Christmas. Unfortunately the NYPD, either purposefully or because someone there can't read, got it wrong since the law they referenced defines motorized scooters as having handlebars, which hoverboards don't have. Anyone cited by the NYPD for a hoverboard is not breaking the law.

So yeah people do get to go before judges for doing things that aren't illegal. In this case there's a glaring misinterpretation on the part of the NYPD but I can easily imagine cases where a PD could plausibly interpret a narrow law one way - the way leading arrest - and leaving it to the courts to figure out.
Click to expand...
Ok, yes, police (and prosecutors) are prone to over-interpret. As you say, that already happens. Often. I doubt anything would change for the better or worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom