Friday, March 17, 2006
Happy St. Paddy's Day
WSJ on St. Paddy's Day
A is for Anarachy, V is for Vendetta: More WSJ
How can this be legal?
A good new blog on campaign finance regulation. He's got some other good posts and read some of his papers when you have a chance.
A is for Anarachy, V is for Vendetta: More WSJ
How can this be legal?
A good new blog on campaign finance regulation. He's got some other good posts and read some of his papers when you have a chance.
Comments:
<< Home
I can't wait to see V for Vendetta. I am far from an anarchist, but it will be fun to see a movie that is half way original.
As far as the GPS ankle bracletts, I imagine it has pretty solid legal foundation. Afterall, these bracelett wearers aren't just random gang members they pulled off the street, they are parolees. The law requires parolees to do plenty of things that would be considered unecc. intrusive for a regular citizen.
As far as the GPS ankle bracletts, I imagine it has pretty solid legal foundation. Afterall, these bracelett wearers aren't just random gang members they pulled off the street, they are parolees. The law requires parolees to do plenty of things that would be considered unecc. intrusive for a regular citizen.
# posted by 
: 12:20 PM
: 12:20 PM
I like the ankle bracelets. They demonstrate that there is still some understanding of outlawry in people's consciences. You break a law, you lose the protection of your rights by the law. Here, parolees lose the right of privacy.
Is privacy a right? I don't know. The Common Law was abolished before it got that far, as far as I know.
Is encroachment on someone's rights the same as not protecting those rights? If the law will no longer protect someone's privacy because they have broken a law, fine. But is "not protecting" the same as encroaching? Should the government actively encroach on parolees right to privacy?
Under outlawry, anyone could hunt an outlaw down and kill him. But the government did not necessarily organize the manhunt. That was usually left to the avenger, often a close relative.
Is gang activity a strong enough crime to merit outlaw status?
Retribution for encroachments no longer takes precedence in our legal system, rather criminals are imprisoned until they have paid their debt to society. Which is to say that the wronged don't get any retribution other than higher taxes to support the imprisonment of criminals.
Enough.
Nathan
Is privacy a right? I don't know. The Common Law was abolished before it got that far, as far as I know.
Is encroachment on someone's rights the same as not protecting those rights? If the law will no longer protect someone's privacy because they have broken a law, fine. But is "not protecting" the same as encroaching? Should the government actively encroach on parolees right to privacy?
Under outlawry, anyone could hunt an outlaw down and kill him. But the government did not necessarily organize the manhunt. That was usually left to the avenger, often a close relative.
Is gang activity a strong enough crime to merit outlaw status?
Retribution for encroachments no longer takes precedence in our legal system, rather criminals are imprisoned until they have paid their debt to society. Which is to say that the wronged don't get any retribution other than higher taxes to support the imprisonment of criminals.
Enough.
Nathan
Somebody takes your stuff. They get busted. Do they go to jail, or do they have to pay you back. And, do they owe you anything for losses incurred in the duration.
One method of reckoning on this is for deliberate acts the perpetrator would have to restore seven times the stolen good. Which I like, because then stealing more has a higher cost. If it is not deliberate the person at fault would have to restore 6/5 the original value. These scales seem arbitrary, but I believe they were arrived at through a scientific process of trial and error, with the arrived upon figures serving the best to deter theft, to restore property without being overly punative in accidental cases, etc.
Nathan
Post a Comment
One method of reckoning on this is for deliberate acts the perpetrator would have to restore seven times the stolen good. Which I like, because then stealing more has a higher cost. If it is not deliberate the person at fault would have to restore 6/5 the original value. These scales seem arbitrary, but I believe they were arrived at through a scientific process of trial and error, with the arrived upon figures serving the best to deter theft, to restore property without being overly punative in accidental cases, etc.
Nathan
<< Home
