• 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!

People Who Try Not To Break The Law Shouldn't Be Punished

joko104 said:
No, that is inaccurate. You do not have to know the law. You just should have some sense what you are doing is wrong conduct.
Click to expand...
There's no practical difference between the two.

There's still no reliable or easy way to demonstrate what you knew...that you knew the [law], or that you know it was [bad behavior], the difference between the two are practically irrelevant for the discussion.

If you're a sociopath and you literally don't feel it's wrong, and I don't care, you're going away just the same. I also don't care that you didn't know it wasn't a law.
In either/both cases, you're gonna be tried by the court system for breaking the law.

Courts are not machines, they may take any circumstances into account including being a clueless idiot who didn't know. OP is nuts.
 
Police, prosecutors and judges should never make assumptions, they should always go by hard facts. Since there's no way for them to know what you're intent was when you broke the law, it shouldn't be a factor. The only way to accidentally break the law is if you're unaware of the law. I don't think it's fair to say "ignorance is no excuse" when we have hundreds of thousands of laws that don't involve any form of violence, vandalism or fraud and that no reasonable person can be expected to intuitively deduce. Breaking such laws should never be a serious offense. The government should be constitutionally obligated to minimize the number of laws and the number of words in each law and to actively inform the people of all existing laws. Every citizen should receive a complete reference of the law for free, updated every 90 days.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
What about Shaneen Allen? What has she to do with the nature of the US' jurisprudential structure and reasoning.
Click to expand...

She is an example of somebody who got in trouble who didn't deserve to get in trouble. Although she was pardoned by the then governor of NJ, Christie, she should not have had to go through all the hassle she did.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Laws need to be written so that people trying to avoid violating them almost always can.

If they are not then they are abusive, the citizens are being abused.
Click to expand...
I agree, and that is the problem in many states, they have laws that are abusive and that abuse the citizens and that are hard not to break. And its like that I would say in most of the country.
 
holbritter said:
Can you give an example?
Click to expand...

There is the case of Shaneen Allen. And there is also the case of possession of a cigarette lighter in the state of Maryland. Now Im sure a cigarette lighter will not get you in trouble in Maryland but its not too far fetched to say it could.
 
DebateChallenge said:
There is the case of Shaneen Allen. And there is also the case of possession of a cigarette lighter in the state of Maryland. Now Im sure a cigarette lighter will not get you in trouble in Maryland but its not too far fetched to say it could.
Click to expand...

The Allen case is not an 'accident' imo. As a responsible handgun owner, you should know where you are allowed to carry.

A person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150101/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation

Otherwise, it's your responsibility to know. I don't understand the cigarette lighter thing. You supposedly have to be 18 to buy a lighter, so I guess if they wanted to push it, they could.
 
DebateChallenge said:
She is an example of somebody who got in trouble who didn't deserve to get in trouble. Although she was pardoned by the then governor of NJ, Christie, she should not have had to go through all the hassle she did.
Click to expand...

Okay....By her experience is shown the system is imperfect...That is to nobody an epiphany.
 
DebateChallenge said:
A person should not get in trouble when they break the law accidentally, when they aren't trying to commit any crime.
Click to expand...

So then no penalties for harming people when driving drunk or texting?
 
Lutherf said:
That only works if you're Hillary Clinton and Jim Comey is investigating you. The rest of us get the full meal deal.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton and the majority of the current White House and staff - and many Republicans - supreme court justices - ect ect ect.

Or perhaps your point is the Clinton's crimes (that have never been proven) are accidental and Trump and his white power party's crimes were intentional?
 
Kreton said:
Hillary Clinton and the majority of the current White House and staff - and many Republicans - supreme court justices - ect ect ect.

Or perhaps your point is the Clinton's crimes (that have never been proven) are accidental and Trump and his white power party's crimes were intentional?
Click to expand...

Oh... her crimes have been proven all right... just not in a court.
 
DebateChallenge said:
There is the case of Shaneen Allen. And there is also the case of possession of a cigarette lighter in the state of Maryland. Now Im sure a cigarette lighter will not get you in trouble in Maryland but its not too far fetched to say it could.
Click to expand...

Are you saying every driver of an older car in Maryland is guilty of a crime?
 
Mason66 said:
Are you saying every driver of an older car in Maryland is guilty of a crime?
Click to expand...

Probably not because the older cars had the electric cigarette lighters which did not project fire.
 
Lursa said:
So then no penalties for harming people when driving drunk or texting?
Click to expand...

Its well known that both drunk driving and texting while driving are illegal, so people who do those things are breaking the law and know it.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Probably not because the older cars had the electric cigarette lighters which did not project fire.
Click to expand...

You said cigarette lighters. You did not say it had to be a specific kind.
 
Lursa said:
So then no penalties for harming people when driving drunk or texting?
Click to expand...

DebateChallenge said:
Its well known that both drunk driving and texting while driving are illegal, so people who do those things are breaking the law and know it.
Click to expand...

So you just moved the goal posts then. Because nowhere here did you even imply anything about 'knowing something is illegal.:'

DebateChallenge said:
A person should not get in trouble when they break the law accidentally, when they aren't trying to commit any crime.
Click to expand...

That's what I was responding to. Care to try again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom