- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,705
- Reaction score
- 12,260
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
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.
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.