Legalized Pickpocketing
Tim Bruening
of paperback "World Of Ptavvs", set in the early 22nd century, at a time
when almost all crimes on Earth had been made death penalty offenses to
keep the Organ Banks supplied with organs: One Dale Synder reminds an
ARM (UN cop) named Lucas Garner that most nations had laws against pick
pocketing before Earth became so crowded (about 18 billion by mid-21st
century) that the cops could no longer enforce the laws against pick
pocketing, implying that all the nations of the world passed laws
decriminalizing pick pocketing when the planet became so over crowded.
I would like to know how in the world the pick pocketing
decriminalization movement persuaded a majority of voters and
legislators to repeal the anti-pick pocketing laws, especially at a time
when all other crimes were being made capital offenses to supply the
Organ Banks. I would expect the law and order crowd, in alliance with
those who wanted the Organ Banks kept full, would have demanded that
pick pocketing be made a capital offense, not legalized! I would expect
the pro-pick pocketers to be accused of being "soft on crime" and voted
out of office.
The Beowolf Shaffer story "Flatlander": Beowolf learns that
pickpocketing is legal due to Earth's overcrowding making it impossible
to enforce any laws against it. Earth wallets even have addresses and
stamps so that pick pocketers can return the wallets after removing the
cash (but not the credit or ID cards).
Tim Bruening
19:41:49 +0100:
> "James Kuyper Jr." <kuy...@wizard.net> wrote on Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:25:01 -0500:
>
> > The difference between sodomy and, for instance, embezellment, is not
> > enforceability. It is that one of them involves the fully informed
> > consent of all affected people, and the other does not. I'd find his
> > concept that picking pockets might become legal more plausible, if I
> > could see any reason why people would cease to object to having their
> > pockets picked.
>
> Well, anything that isn't illegal is legal, by default.
>
> Consider the psychology of that period's flatlanders: Extremely gregarious,
> racially, economically and culturally equal to a great degree, totally
> sexually uninhibited and mentally and physically nonagressive.
>
> Nobody feels threatened by physical contact, and everyone is aware of the
> possibility of losing your wallet. In a mostly cashless society with palm
> print locks instead of keys, it's no great loss. Presumably unspoken social
> rules and nonverbal signals arise that regulate this to a degree. i.e. a
> nudist isn't going to get his pockets picked.
>
> The way it's presented, it's looks to me like a mating game. Remember
> Sharrol steals Bey's wallet, what happens afterwards? They get hitched.
> Think of picking a someone's wallet as a way of getting their phone number
> (The fact they meet through a coincidence later is, I feel, somewhat
> improbable unfortunately. But it doesn't change the essence of my argument)
How in the world were the nations of Earth persauded to repeal the laws
against pickpocketing???? I would expect that any politician proposing
the legalization of pickpocketing would have been voted out of office
for being "soft on crime"!
Tim Bruening
> << It's impossible to stop people taking pens home from the office, but
> that hasn't stopped it being theft. >>
>
> Except in the Known Space Universe, the authorities have made crimes they can't
> enforce legal. Stupid, but we know they've done it.
How were the various national legislatures and the UN persuaded to
physically vote to make pick pocketing legal? I would have expected
conservatives to eat proponents of legalization alive!
Tim Bruening
> ANIM8Rfsk wrote in message <20001125140858.01951.00003324@ng-
> >I was just following the precedent. They made pickpocketing legal because
> they
> >couldn't enforce it (which seems stupid to me). So why not murder?
>
> What always struck me as really stupid about the pickpocketing bit is that
> no one ever made a 'lockable pocket' of some sort to keep from getting
> robbed. Despite the fact that pickpocketing was completely routine, everyone
> apparently kept on using wallets in ordinary pockets despite the ease with
> which one could block that sort of thing. Something as basic as a zippered
> pocket with a lock on it (possible opened by the person's fingerprint since
> IIRC they had that level of technology) would make pickpocketing much more
> difficult, yet apparently no one bothered to make such a thing.
I bet that many people did have such security, but Larry Niven merely
forgot to mention it in his stories, since pickpocketing wasn't a major
plot point.
In "Flatlander", Beowolf was unaware of the legality of pickpocketing,
so he didn't realize that he should put his wallet in a secured pocket.
James Kuyper
Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
model. This requires that pick-pocketing become not merely a commonplace
activity, but also a popular one. That is, there was not only a large
fraction of the populace that were victims, but also a large fraction of
the populace who were perpetrators, say at least 25%.
I consider it extremely unlikely that this would ever be the case, but
if it were, then decriminalization becomes a natural consequence. That
would be because a solid electoral majority of people would either be
pick-pockets, or have friends or relatives that they sympathized with
who were pickpockets.
Erik Max Francis
> Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> model. This requires that pick-pocketing become not merely a commonplace
> activity, but also a popular one. That is, there was not only a large
> fraction of the populace that were victims, but also a large fraction of
> the populace who were perpetrators, say at least 25%.
More than that, the general populace would have to view it as
essentially a victimless crime. To decriminalize a crime that one
person commits specifically against another, they'd both have to
effectively consent to it, or welcome the activity. Kind of hard to see
that happening with pickpocketing, especially since if it really does
become _that_ much of a problem, there are ways to protect yourself
(which are discussed in the thread).
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
It is impossible to love and be wise.
-- Francis Bacon
Quadibloc
> One Dale Synder reminds an
> ARM (UN cop) named Lucas Garner that most nations had laws against pick
> pocketing before Earth became so crowded (about 18 billion by mid-21st
> century) that the cops could no longer enforce the laws against pick
> pocketing, implying that all the nations of the world passed laws
> decriminalizing pick pocketing when the planet became so over crowded.
> I would like to know how in the world the pick pocketing
> decriminalization movement persuaded a majority of voters and
> legislators to repeal the anti-pick pocketing laws, especially at a time
> when all other crimes were being made capital offenses to supply the
> Organ Banks.
I thought the Organ Banks thing was a separate short story.
But I can think of one missing element that might make this plausible.
Suppose that there was a law that required police to conscientiously
investigate all crimes reported to them - say, for example, to prevent
a police department from using its discretion to discriminate against
a minority group by not investigating crimes of which its members are
victims.
If that were to happen, *then* the fact that conditions were so
crowded that it was hopeless for police to investigate incidents of
pickpocketing would be a reason to take the crime off the books.
Plus, a crowded, anonymous society is likely one that has measures
like gun control - so presumably giving pickpocketing a special status
as illegal but not to be investigated, so that if a victim catches
someone red-handed, he can legally cut off the pickpocket's hand, or
kill him, to get his wallet back doesn't appeal to the ruling
political elites.
One also can assume that the rulers of a crowded society often have to
make difficult choices, so the government wouldn't be highly
answerable to public sentiments - it might be technically democratic,
but very much in the "republic but not a democracy" sense.
John Savard
DougL
> More than that, the general populace would have to view it as
> essentially a victimless crime. To decriminalize a crime that one
> person commits specifically against another, they'd both have to
> effectively consent to it, or welcome the activity.
Or at least find it only minimally annoying. Some forms of spam and
phone solicitation aren't illegal, but I consider myself a victim and
haven't consented or welcomed it.
> Kind of hard to see
> that happening with pickpocketing, especially since if it really does
> become _that_ much of a problem, there are ways to protect yourself
> (which are discussed in the thread).
Assume the "standard" protection from pick-pockets is to carry an
minimal amount of cash and that the pickpocket mails you back your ID
and credit cards (the second at least is true in the story, with
wallets coming standard with a place for the stamp built in).
Assume mail delivery of returned ID is effectively instant. (They have
teleportation.)
Assume most people carry cash only for tips and the equivelent of
vending machines, say no more than $5 in today's money. And that
carrying more is widely assumed to be more or less proof that you're
engaged in an illegal activity since honest people don't need much
cash (waiters and the like convert any cash tips to deposits at their
place of buiseness).
Then assume that pick-pocketting is widely viewed as a game of skill.
I can see decriminalization. Although there might be rather severe
penalties for "cheating" by not mailing the wallet BACK in a
reasonable period of time. The big problem with decriminalization in
such an enviroment is that it leaves a question what I'm supposed to
do if I catch someone ATTEMPTING to pick my pocket, if it's a game of
skill there should be some penalty for loosing after all. But I could
solve that if I really cared (a modest and set civil judgement which
can be collected at the time and place of the alleged attempted pick-
pocketting by mutual consent say).
Personally I think it far more likely even given the above that
pickpocketting remains criminal but the laws are rarely actually
enforced. Sort of like our laws against some forms of SPAM or
telephone solicitation today, you have to get REALLY annoying before
anyone enforces the law.
DougL
David Johnston
<james...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
>you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
>up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
>model.
It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
whistling in public or whatever.
David E. Siegel
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > One Dale Synder reminds an
> > ARM (UN cop) named Lucas Garner that most nations had laws against pick
> > pocketing before Earth became so crowded (about 18 billion by mid-21st
> > century) that the cops could no longer enforce the laws against pick
> > pocketing, implying that all the nations of the world passed laws
> > decriminalizing pick pocketing when the planet became so over crowded.
> > I would like to know how in the world the pick pocketing
> > decriminalization movement persuaded a majority of voters and
> > legislators to repeal the anti-pick pocketing laws, especially at a time
> > when all other crimes were being made capital offenses to supply the
> > Organ Banks.
>
> I thought the Organ Banks thing was a separate short story.
>
in _A Gift from Earth_), and a minor but celarly present element in
the Beowulf Shaefer stories. Both are sub-sets of the "Known Space"
series. There is one story that *focuses* on the Organ Bank problem
more than any otehr (I'm blanking on the title, closing phrase goes
"The state will prove that you, Warren Lewis Knowles, did on five
occasions within a three-year period <snip to avoid spoiling
punchline, for anyone who hasn't read it>" That story is part of the
same series, and by internal evidence roughly contemporary with the
Gil The Arm stories.
> But I can think of one missing element that might make this plausible.
>
> Suppose that there was a law that required police to conscientiously
> investigate all crimes reported to them - say, for example, to prevent
> a police department from using its discretion to discriminate against
> a minority group by not investigating crimes of which its members are
> victims.
>
Except that we are shown significnt judgemetn calls on what to
investigate on the part of the cops in the Gill the Arm stories.
> If that were to happen, *then* the fact that conditions were so
> crowded that it was hopeless for police to investigate incidents of
> pickpocketing would be a reason to take the crime off the books.
>
> Plus, a crowded, anonymous society is likely one that has measures
> like gun control - so presumably giving pickpocketing a special status
> as illegal but not to be investigated, so that if a victim catches
> someone red-handed, he can legally cut off the pickpocket's hand, or
> kill him, to get his wallet back doesn't appeal to the ruling
> political elites.
>
> One also can assume that the rulers of a crowded society often have to
> make difficult choices, so the government wouldn't be highly
> answerable to public sentiments - it might be technically democratic,
> but very much in the "republic but not a democracy" sense.
>
> John Savard
But again, we are shown that public pressure can and does decide major
policy issues in this universe. i particularly cite "The Defensless
Dead", but there are other examples.
I agree that the "pickpocketing is legal" idea didn't make much sense.
-DES
Erik Max Francis
> On Dec 26, 1:58 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>> More than that, the general populace would have to view it as
>> essentially a victimless crime. To decriminalize a crime that one
>> person commits specifically against another, they'd both have to
>> effectively consent to it, or welcome the activity.
>
> Or at least find it only minimally annoying. Some forms of spam and
> phone solicitation aren't illegal, but I consider myself a victim and
> haven't consented or welcomed it.
That seems to be a counterexample of what you're talking about below;
getting a spam email or a phone call you can ignore when you see the
Caller ID (especially in today's Do Not Call age, at least in the United
States) is far less intrusive than having your wallet stolen.
>> Kind of hard to see
>> that happening with pickpocketing, especially since if it really does
>> become _that_ much of a problem, there are ways to protect yourself
>> (which are discussed in the thread).
>
> Assume the "standard" protection from pick-pockets is to carry an
> minimal amount of cash and that the pickpocket mails you back your ID
> and credit cards (the second at least is true in the story, with
> wallets coming standard with a place for the stamp built in).
If pickpocketing were really to become that widespread, then the
protection would be to put your wallets into buttoned or Velcroed
pockets, purses, and so on. If it were _really_ that bad, then a market
would arise for it. Then pickpocketing would become quite difficult --
the reason pickpockets can get away with it now is because it's still
relatively, in the large scheme of things, uncommon. Postulate the
society that Niven's talking about where on _any given walk_ your
chances of being pickpocketed are so high that you will be castigated
for not taking precautions, and then it's just silly that it's being
tolerated or that the precautions above haven't become so universal that
the practice hasn't been reduced back to low levels, even given the
silly hypothetical that large percentages of people _like_
pickpocketing. (As if decriminalization wouldn't have something to do
with that ...)
> Assume most people carry cash only for tips and the equivelent of
> vending machines, say no more than $5 in today's money. And that
> carrying more is widely assumed to be more or less proof that you're
> engaged in an illegal activity since honest people don't need much
> cash (waiters and the like convert any cash tips to deposits at their
> place of buiseness).
In a progressively cashless society, the real injury to having your
wallet stolen isn't losing the money it contains, because you can always
get more (everyone carries in their wallet an amount that they're
ultimately willing to lose, should the worst case happen).
> I can see decriminalization. Although there might be rather severe
> penalties for "cheating" by not mailing the wallet BACK in a
> reasonable period of time. The big problem with decriminalization in
> such an enviroment is that it leaves a question what I'm supposed to
> do if I catch someone ATTEMPTING to pick my pocket, if it's a game of
> skill there should be some penalty for loosing after all. But I could
> solve that if I really cared (a modest and set civil judgement which
> can be collected at the time and place of the alleged attempted pick-
> pocketting by mutual consent say).
But that's inconsistent with the premise in the Niven stories, which is
that it was completely unenforceable. If someone steals your wallet and
won't give it back, then there's nothing you can do about it. If that
becomes enough of a problem, then you have to start taking steps to
enforce it. Which is probably what you should have been doing in the
first place, since it actually is a crime with a victim, rather than
other victimless crimes which might imply a decriminalization solution,
whether or not everyone thinks that's a good idea.
I still find it pretty implausible.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
I sleep and dream that life is / All beauty
-- Lamya
James Kuyper
...
> enforced. Sort of like our laws against some forms of SPAM or
> telephone solicitation today, you have to get REALLY annoying before
> anyone enforces the law.
The do-not-call registry <www.donotcall.gov> has been extremely
effective at reducing unwanted telephone solicitation in the US. There
are loopholes deliberately written into the law for charitable
solicitations, solicitations for political campaigns, and for companies
that you already have an established relationship with (like the
companies that give you utility services). However, the exceptions are a
problem only because they are exceptions. For those of us registered
with the service, unwanted solicitations that would actually be covered
by the law are practically non-existent.
Spam is a different matter. The simplest way to determine where it came
from is trivial to fake. The more sophisticated ways of tracing it
usually turn up some fool who forgot to install adequate security on his
computer, which has been taken over by a program sending out spam. Spam
is almost never sent directly by the spammer, and that's what makes
anti-spam laws hard to enforce.
Darren J Longhorn
<sie...@acm.org> wrote:
>series. There is one story that *focuses* on the Organ Bank problem
>more than any otehr (I'm blanking on the title, closing phrase goes
>"The state will prove that you, Warren Lewis Knowles, did on five
>occasions within a three-year period <snip to avoid spoiling
>punchline, for anyone who hasn't read it>" That story is part of the
>same series, and by internal evidence roughly contemporary with the
>Gil The Arm stories.
Jigsaw Man.
Lee Hulbert
>
> It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
> would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> whistling in public or whatever.
The only plausible answer I see is that some high-profile case went to
a world-wide Supreme Court, and somehow pickpocketing laws were ruled
unenforceable. I asmit that I see know real mechanism for that,
either, but it at least avoids the pitfalls of expecting elected
officials to vote in favor of pickpocketing.
Actually, now that I think about it, an enforced sunsetter rule,
whereby laws need to be re-enacted periodically, could end with
pickpocketing falling off the books if it had degenerated to a minor
nuisance. Such a sunsetter rule has been advocated in the US at
times.
Lee
Peter Bruells
> It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the
> law would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws
> about not whistling in public or whatever.
If pickpocketing isn't illegal, victims have to grounds to defend
themselves.
If have no qualms about he police saying "Sorry, catching they guy who
picked your pocket is unlikely and we tell you flatly that we won't
spend any time on it before we haven't saved this murder, that rape
and stopped those white slavers."
I object, however, to not being allowed to stab, shoot, hit or
otherwise incapacitate someone who tries to steal from me.
David DeLaney
>more than any otehr (I'm blanking on the title, closing phrase goes
>"The state will prove that you, Warren Lewis Knowles, did on five
>occasions within a three-year period <snip to avoid spoiling
>punchline, for anyone who hasn't read it>" That story is part of the
>same series, and by internal evidence roughly contemporary with the
>Gil The Arm stories.
That would be, says wiki, after some searching, "The Jigsaw Man". I first
thought it was in the Neutron Star collection (but ran into the issue that
the link for the collection in wiki links instead to a page about the short
story, and I can't fix that because there appears to be no page about the
collection), but it was actually in All The Myriad Ways.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Tim Bruening
Quadibloc wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > One Dale Synder reminds an
> > ARM (UN cop) named Lucas Garner that most nations had laws against pick
> > pocketing before Earth became so crowded (about 18 billion by mid-21st
> > century) that the cops could no longer enforce the laws against pick
> > pocketing, implying that all the nations of the world passed laws
> > decriminalizing pick pocketing when the planet became so over crowded.
> > I would like to know how in the world the pick pocketing
> > decriminalization movement persuaded a majority of voters and
> > legislators to repeal the anti-pick pocketing laws, especially at a time
> > when all other crimes were being made capital offenses to supply the
> > Organ Banks.
>
> I thought the Organ Banks thing was a separate short story.
Several Niven stories set in the first half of the 3rd millenium mention organ
banks and executing criminals to supply them.
Tim Bruening
Quadibloc wrote:
If pickpocketing were legal, could I be arrested if I beat up the pickpocketer
to get my wallet back? Could I then be sent to the Organ Banks?
Tim Bruening
DougL wrote:
I would get a wallet that could be chained to my pants.
Then the perps would need Sinclair molecue wire to cut the chain!
Tim Bruening
David Johnston wrote:
But on page 89 of paperback "World Of Ptavvs", One Dale Synder says to an
ARM (UN cop) named Lucas Garner "Let's suppose that the, uh, Sea Statue
civilization had a law against picking pockets. Most countries, you know,
had such laws before we got so crowded that the cops couldn't enforce
them". In "Flatlander", a pickpocketer told Beowulf Shaffer in
"Flatlander" that there were no laws against pickpocketing. I therefore
got the impression that all laws banning pickpocketing had been repealed
and physically erased from the law books and legal codes!
Tim Bruening
"David E. Siegel" wrote:
Voters on Earth had voted to make more and more crimes subject to the death
penalty, such as jaywalking and false advertising. Later, when Earth developed
alternatives to the organ banks, voters started repealing death penalties.
Tim Bruening
Quadibloc wrote:
If you can't enforce pickpocketing due to the overcrowding, how do you enforce
gun control laws?
pullo
"Tim Bruening" <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:47750896...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
>
>
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> Plus, a crowded, anonymous society is likely one that has measures
>> like gun control - so presumably giving pickpocketing a special status
>> as illegal but not to be investigated, so that if a victim catches
>> someone red-handed, he can legally cut off the pickpocket's hand, or
>> kill him, to get his wallet back doesn't appeal to the ruling
>> political elites.
>
> If you can't enforce pickpocketing due to the overcrowding, how do you
> enforce
> gun control laws?
I dunno about that but if you can't enforce gun control laws that would
pretty much take care of your overcrowding problem.
:)
Erik Max Francis
> Voters on Earth had voted to make more and more crimes subject to the death
> penalty, such as jaywalking and false advertising.
And on that subject, nice to see that they don't have a judicial check
and balance in their system.
I mean, really, Niven's stories are fun, but you can't take the
sociology or politics very seriously.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Lawyers, I suppose, were children once.
-- Charles Lamb
D.F. Manno
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> James Kuyper wrote:
>
> >Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> >you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> >up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> >model.
>
> It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
> would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> whistling in public or whatever.
That day was here in Philadelphia in 1989. I had my pocket picked as I
was boarding a trolley (there was a crush of people trying to get on). I
had just cashed my paycheck and had more than $500 in my wallet. I
called the Philly cops, and the officer who responded informed me that
since I did not actually _see_ anybody take my wallet, the incident
would be listed as "lost property." No action beyond filing the report
would be taken.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. (William Pitt the
Younger, 1783)
Tim Bruening
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> > Voters on Earth had voted to make more and more crimes subject to the death
> > penalty, such as jaywalking and false advertising.
>
> And on that subject, nice to see that they don't have a judicial check
> and balance in their system.
In "A Gift From Earth", Mount Lookathat leader Millard Parlette mentions that the
police on Earth have to obtain search warrents before they can conduct a search.
Tim Bruening
"D.F. Manno" wrote:
> In article <3si5n35eig1kmcpjc...@4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> > James Kuyper wrote:
> >
> > >Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> > >you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> > >up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> > >model.
> >
> > It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> > unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
> > would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> > whistling in public or whatever.
>
> That day was here in Philadelphia in 1989. I had my pocket picked as I
> was boarding a trolley (there was a crush of people trying to get on). I
> had just cashed my paycheck and had more than $500 in my wallet. I
> called the Philly cops, and the officer who responded informed me that
> since I did not actually _see_ anybody take my wallet, the incident
> would be listed as "lost property." No action beyond filing the report
> would be taken.
I don't buy the 1989 incident leading to the actual repeal of laws against
pickpocketing! I suggest putting location beacons in the fabric of wallets.
Erik Max Francis
I was referring to a supreme judicial check. Meaning, a Supreme Court
that could strike down such absurd laws pursuant so some remotely
reasonable constitution which outlawed things like cruel, unusual, or
excessive punishment. The death penalty for jaywalking certainly qualifies.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Nobody's waited longer than me / To come clean
-- Jaki Graham
Tim Bruening
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> > Erik Max Francis wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Bruening wrote:
> >>
> >>> Voters on Earth had voted to make more and more crimes subject to the death
> >>> penalty, such as jaywalking and false advertising.
> >> And on that subject, nice to see that they don't have a judicial check
> >> and balance in their system.
> >
> > In "A Gift From Earth", Mount Lookathat leader Millard Parlette mentions that the
> > police on Earth have to obtain search warrents before they can conduct a search.
>
> I was referring to a supreme judicial check. Meaning, a Supreme Court
> that could strike down such absurd laws pursuant so some remotely
> reasonable constitution which outlawed things like cruel, unusual, or
> excessive punishment. The death penalty for jaywalking certainly qualifies.
In the Gil "The Arm" Hamilton/Lucas Garner era, almost all crimes were punished by
executing the perpetrator and harvesting his/her organs for the organ banks. This
means that executions were very, very, common, and thus didn't qualify as "Cruel AND
Unusual punishment", so couldn't be struck down on "Cruel AND Unusual" grounds!
Tim Bruening
"D.F. Manno" wrote:
> In article <3si5n35eig1kmcpjc...@4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> > James Kuyper wrote:
> >
> > >Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> > >you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> > >up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> > >model.
> >
> > It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> > unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
> > would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> > whistling in public or whatever.
>
> That day was here in Philadelphia in 1989. I had my pocket picked as I
> was boarding a trolley (there was a crush of people trying to get on). I
> had just cashed my paycheck and had more than $500 in my wallet. I
> called the Philly cops, and the officer who responded informed me that
> since I did not actually _see_ anybody take my wallet, the incident
> would be listed as "lost property." No action beyond filing the report
> would be taken.
Would you go for legalizing pickpocketing if you were assured of getting your
wallet back with your credit cards and ID cards?
Tim Bruening
David Johnston wrote:
Great moment in "Flatlander": Beowulf Shaffer making love to Sharrol Janss
while holding her purse in his mouth!
Tim Bruening
DougL wrote:
Sharrol removed about 200 stars from Beowulf's wallet before handing it
back to him. Minutes later, he dropped half a star in a phone booth slot.
Where did he get the half star, since Sharrol had just robbed him?
Erik Max Francis
> In the Gil "The Arm" Hamilton/Lucas Garner era, almost all crimes were punished by
> executing the perpetrator and harvesting his/her organs for the organ banks. This
> means that executions were very, very, common, and thus didn't qualify as "Cruel AND
> Unusual punishment", so couldn't be struck down on "Cruel AND Unusual" grounds!
That's the point. The fact that something is common, or popular,
doesn't mean it's constitutional. We of course have no idea what the
UN's constitution (or equivalent) says, or how the chief judicial court
operates, but it's obviously not working very well if something so
blatant as being executed for trivial offenses is allowed to pass unchecked.
Which was merely my point all along: The judicial check has failed in
the organlegging era.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Principles have no real force except when one is well fed.
-- Mark Twain
Tim Bruening
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> > In the Gil "The Arm" Hamilton/Lucas Garner era, almost all crimes were punished by
> > executing the perpetrator and harvesting his/her organs for the organ banks. This
> > means that executions were very, very, common, and thus didn't qualify as "Cruel AND
> > Unusual punishment", so couldn't be struck down on "Cruel AND Unusual" grounds!
>
> That's the point. The fact that something is common, or popular,
> doesn't mean it's constitutional. We of course have no idea what the
> UN's constitution (or equivalent) says, or how the chief judicial court
> operates, but it's obviously not working very well if something so
> blatant as being executed for trivial offenses is allowed to pass unchecked.
>
> Which was merely my point all along: The judicial check has failed in
> the organlegging era.
I suspect that the World Supreme Court justices were swayed by the hope of obtaining organ
transplants!
Darren J Longhorn
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>Sharrol removed about 200 stars from Beowulf's wallet before handing it
>back to him. Minutes later, he dropped half a star in a phone booth slot.
>Where did he get the half star, since Sharrol had just robbed him?
Clearly, she didn't take _all_ of his money.
William December Starr
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> said:
> That's the point. The fact that something is common, or popular,
> doesn't mean it's constitutional. We of course have no idea what
> the UN's constitution (or equivalent) says, or how the chief
> judicial court operates, but it's obviously not working very well
> if something so blatant as being executed for trivial offenses is
> allowed to pass unchecked.
>
> Which was merely my point all along: The judicial check has failed
> in the organlegging era.
The judiciary is constrained by the law. If the law sucks, it's the
lawmakers that have failed.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
norrin
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> writes:
> > It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> > unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the
> > law would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws
> > about not whistling in public or whatever.
>
> If pickpocketing isn't illegal, victims have to grounds to defend
> themselves.
If a pickpocket does their job right, the target never
knows who they were. If a purse snatcher does it
right, somebody notices but not before they're on
the other side of the street.
> If have no qualms about he police saying "Sorry, catching they guy who
> picked your pocket is unlikely and we tell you flatly that we won't
> spend any time on it before we haven't saved this murder, that rape
> and stopped those white slavers."
>
> I object, however, to not being allowed to stab, shoot, hit or
> otherwise incapacitate someone who tries to steal from me.
Which is why a pickpocket or cutpurse has more
skill and planning than the average thief, and
much more skill than the average mugger.
norrin
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Voters on Earth had voted to make more and more crimes subject to the death
> > penalty, such as jaywalking and false advertising.
>
> And on that subject, nice to see that they don't have a judicial check
> and balance in their system.
So you oppose the death penalty for anything, not even
telemarketing.
> I mean, really, Niven's stories are fun, but you can't take the
> sociology or politics very seriously.
The laws of the Constitution or the European Union
are not the laws of nature.
Howard Brazee
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>In the Gil "The Arm" Hamilton/Lucas Garner era, almost all crimes were punished by
>executing the perpetrator and harvesting his/her organs for the organ banks. This
>means that executions were very, very, common, and thus didn't qualify as "Cruel AND
>Unusual punishment", so couldn't be struck down on "Cruel AND Unusual" grounds!
However, the death penalty has been common enough in this country that
it couldn't qualify either - but somehow has.
David DeLaney
The "laws of nature" include execution for instances of stupidity, and also
for being unable to evade your predators or parasites. Tim has, as usual,
crossposted this thread to hell and back, but I've seen all these groups
below and had hoped that everyone on them at least knew how to think, rather
than to spout platitudes.
Mike Stone
"Erik Max Francis" <m...@alcyone.com> wrote in message
news:daCdnbD2k52Nleva...@speakeasy.net...
>
> I was referring to a supreme judicial check. Meaning, a Supreme Court
> that could strike down such absurd laws pursuant so some remotely
> reasonable constitution which outlawed things like cruel, unusual, or
> excessive punishment. The death penalty for jaywalking certainly
qualifies.
>
Only if a majority of the Justices say it does.
Evidently, in Niven's world they didn't. After all, if majorities in
the
elected branches of government were ready to accept such a law,
there's no
reason why a substantial part of the judiciary shouldn't do likewise.
Whether a law is "absurd" (and in whose opinion?) or not has no
bearing whatsoever on its constitutionality.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
I don't know why anyone should think I'm insular.
Why, I even know the French for dentures - Aperitif!
Erik Max Francis
Not in a government where the judiciary acts as an additional check and
balance, like in the United States. The judiciary has the duty of
upholding the constitution, not the law. If a law is found
unconstitutional by the judiciary, then it is null and void.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Chance favors the trained mind.
-- Louis Pasteur
Erik Max Francis
No, but they're a pretty good basis for a constitutional democracy. The
point is, if the organlegging-era UN is a constitutional democracy, then
something's seriously wrong with the government institutions, since
they're not doing their job (assuming such a constitution would have a
prohibition against excessive punishment, which is a pretty reasonable
bet). If they're not, then it's pretty much an invitation to eventual
disaster, anyway. The fault isn't with the idiot voters, it's the lack
of checks and balances to prevent something so stupid as laws that
result in execution for jaywalking or parking violations from being
passed and enforced.
Niven's conception of the UN as a world state is basically only slightly
friendly totalitarianism, anyway. That's the point: It's not a
particularly appealing place to live.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Father Kylesmas
news:04c58272-56b1-45dd...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
No shit. Maybe that's why they exist?
--
P
h
i
l
K
y
l
e
W
o
z
E
r
e
William December Starr
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> said:
> William December Starr wrote:
>
>> The judiciary is constrained by the law. If the law sucks, it's
>> the lawmakers that have failed.
>
> Not in a government where the judiciary acts as an additional
> check and balance, like in the United States. The judiciary has
> the duty of upholding the constitution, not the law. If a law is
> found unconstitutional by the judiciary, then it is null and void.
The constitution is part _of_ the law.
Erik Max Francis
I don't think you really understood my point, because the legislative
and judiciary are two separate branches of government. One's job is
creating new laws; the others is assuring the existing laws have
fidelity to the Constitution. Those laws that don't get chucked out.
That you can sloppily refer to them both collectively as "the law"
completely misses my point.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn.
-- George Bernard Shaw
David Johnston
wrote:
>I don't think you really understood my point, because the legislative
>and judiciary are two separate branches of government. One's job is
>creating new laws; the others is assuring the existing laws have
>fidelity to the Constitution. Those laws that don't get chucked out.
>
>That you can sloppily refer to them both collectively as "the law"
>completely misses my point.
A constitution is merely a set of laws that are somewhat more
difficult to change.
norrin
> norrin <adweil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >> I mean, really, Niven's stories are fun, but you can't take the
> >> sociology or politics very seriously.
>
> >The laws of the Constitution or the European Union
> >are not the laws of nature.
>
> The "laws of nature" include execution for instances of stupidity, and also
This clause takes the pathetic fallacy to a new low. Laws
do not execute. Locally, juries are necessary, but that's
not a universal.
> for being unable to evade your predators or parasites. Tim has, as usual,
> crossposted this thread to hell and back, but I've seen all these groups
> below and had hoped that everyone on them at least knew how to think, rather
> than to spout platitudes.
>
And yet, some people are talking about sociology and
implying their laws are the laws of nature.
Human bodies are made out of interchangeable parts. If
you want to take from one and give to another, you need
to match the ABO specifiers, and the Rh sign. Blood
transfusions are a little more complicated than that, and
organ transplants are much more complicated. In Niven's
universe, these problems are solved.
In this world, transplant rejection is still a problem and
artificial organs are available. In Known Space at the time
of the stories, that's not true. You can disagree with the
premise but you can't accept them and say the conclusions
are wrong because the premises are unrealistic.
norrin
> norrin wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 1:14 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >> Tim Bruening wrote:
> >>> Voters on Earth had voted to make more and more crimes subject to the death
> >>> penalty, such as jaywalking and false advertising.
> >> And on that subject, nice to see that they don't have a judicial check
> >> and balance in their system.
>
> > So you oppose the death penalty for anything, not even
> > telemarketing.
>
> >> I mean, really, Niven's stories are fun, but you can't take the
> >> sociology or politics very seriously.
>
> > The laws of the Constitution or the European Union
> > are not the laws of nature.
>
> No, but they're a pretty good basis for a constitutional democracy. The
> point is, if the organlegging-era UN is a constitutional democracy, then
A constitutional democracy is the rule of law as determined by
officials accepted by the people. It's naive to say that none of
the laws are excessive or exploitative.
> something's seriously wrong with the government institutions, since
> they're not doing their job (assuming such a constitution would have a
> prohibition against excessive punishment, which is a pretty reasonable
Because none of the laws and rules we have now are excessive?
> bet). If they're not, then it's pretty much an invitation to eventual
> disaster, anyway. The fault isn't with the idiot voters, it's the lack
> of checks and balances to prevent something so stupid as laws that
> result in execution for jaywalking or parking violations from being
> passed and enforced.
>
> Niven's conception of the UN as a world state is basically only slightly
> friendly totalitarianism, anyway. That's the point: It's not a
> particularly appealing place to live.
A densely populated city has customs that seem unusual to
observers and commonplace to the residents. In some situations
it can be unfriendly to strangers.
What you seem to be saying is, it's different and that's bad.
I disagree, but I wouldn't like to live there either.
Matthias Warkus
There are constitutions, such as Germany's, where a core section is
explicitly prohibited from any future changes.
mawa
John Schilling
wrote:
>Tim Bruening wrote:
>
>> In the Gil "The Arm" Hamilton/Lucas Garner era, almost all crimes were punished by
>> executing the perpetrator and harvesting his/her organs for the organ banks. This
>> means that executions were very, very, common, and thus didn't qualify as "Cruel AND
>> Unusual punishment", so couldn't be struck down on "Cruel AND Unusual" grounds!
>
>That's the point. The fact that something is common, or popular,
>doesn't mean it's constitutional. We of course have no idea what the
>UN's constitution (or equivalent) says,
We can make the pretty good guess that it does not disallow anything that
was popular at the time it was established, and that it has been amended
as necessary to allow things that were once forbidden but have since
become sufficiently popular.
Also, if it works like the United States Constitution, then in the very
specific area of appropriate punishments for crimes, that something is
common *does* mean it's constitutional. A punishment has to be cruel
*and unusual* to be uncostitutional here. The common forms of cruelty
are all allowed.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.S...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Erik Max Francis
> There are constitutions, such as Germany's, where a core section is
> explicitly prohibited from any future changes.
Same with the United States' Constitution and most other constitutions.
There are parts which are explicitly not subject to amendment.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
What would physics look like without gravitation?
-- Albert Einstein
Erik Max Francis
> We can make the pretty good guess that it does not disallow anything that
> was popular at the time it was established, and that it has been amended
> as necessary to allow things that were once forbidden but have since
> become sufficiently popular.
>
> Also, if it works like the United States Constitution, then in the very
> specific area of appropriate punishments for crimes, that something is
> common *does* mean it's constitutional. A punishment has to be cruel
> *and unusual* to be uncostitutional here.
That doesn't explain why the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional
for a time here. While not unusual at all, the Supreme Court ruled that
the way it was employed was unconstitutional since it was unfair. After
those issues were addressed, it was restored as being constitutional
again. If what you were saying were true, that couldn't have happened.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Michael S. Schiffer
news:t8WdnUrfgpo1m-Xa...@speakeasy.net:
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
>> There are constitutions, such as Germany's, where a core
>> section is explicitly prohibited from any future changes.
> Same with the United States' Constitution and most other
> constitutions.
> There are parts which are explicitly not subject to amendment.
Though the only one currently effectual in the US is the one
forbidding depriving a state of equal representation in the Senate
without its consent. Assuming broad support for such a change (which
is hard to really imagine), there are probably end-runs around this.
E.g., abolishing the Senate (so every state has equal
representation-- that is, zero) and, optionally, constituting a new
upper house with a different name and different apportionment.
And, of course, there are means of superseding an existing
constitution regardless of its internal provisions-- revolution being
the obvious one, but a constitutional convention like the one that
replaced the Articles of Confederation with the current US
Constitution would be another example.
Mike
David E. Siegel
> John Schilling wrote:
> > We can make the pretty good guess that it does not disallow anything that
> > was popular at the time it was established, and that it has been amended
> > as necessary to allow things that were once forbidden but have since
> > become sufficiently popular.
>
> > Also, if it works like the United States Constitution, then in the very
> > specific area of appropriate punishments for crimes, that something is
> > common *does* mean it's constitutional. A punishment has to be cruel
> > *and unusual* to be uncostitutional here.
>
> That doesn't explain why the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional
> for a time here. While not unusual at all, the Supreme Court ruled that
> the way it was employed was unconstitutional since it was unfair. After
> those issues were addressed, it was restored as being constitutional
> again. If what you were saying were true, that couldn't have happened.
>
> --
> San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
> What would physics look like without gravitation?
> -- Albert Einstein
"Cruel and Unusual" is a term of art in a legal context, just as are
"due process" "actual malice" "priviliges and immunities" "hearsay"
"just cause" "high crimes and misdemeanors" and many other such
phrases. Trying to parse these by common dictionary definations
without their specifically legal history is an excercize is futility.
The US ban on "Cruel and Unusual" punishment was originally intendeded
to ban judicial torture, burning at the stake, drawing and quartering,
and simialr punishments that had once been as usual as sunrise in
England, but most of which had not caught on in the "colonies". It was
eventually extended to ban the whipping post (quite usual when the US
constitution was first adopted) overcrowded prisons (ditto) and
eventually the death penalty, and then the USSC changed its mind and
said that death is not "Cruel and Unusual". It has now come to be held
that any punishment involving the intentional infliction of physical
pain is "Cruel and Unusual", and recent disputes over methods of
execution have focused on how painful they are or might be. (Although
things can be held "Cruel and Unusual" that do not involve physical
pain, such as overcrowding) But this standard is subject to change any
time 5 Justices decide to. Whether it makes sense to adopt this
standard can be argued, but it seems to be the current law.
-DES
David E. Siegel
> San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
> Chance favors the trained mind.
>
> - Show quoted text -
The standard for what is excessive punishment for a givcen crime has
varied widely over different times and places. In the US, when the
constitution was adopted, death penalties for thefts of comparitively
minor sums were not considered excessive -- would you say that the
early US courts were failing to do their job by not striking down such
laws? The argument used in most of the anti-death-penalty cases of
1970s and 80s -- the ones that lead to the USSC ruling all death
penalties invalid, before they flipflopped a year later -- was
'evolving community standards' which explicitly assumes that what is
excessive may and will change over time. If the clear community
standard is that jaywalking or fals advertising merits death, by what
leagal or legalistic standard can you say this is 'obviously absurd"?
(A moral or ethical standard is another matter, but courts are mostly
not supposed to appeal to moral standards)
We are told that in Gils day a "direct UN vote" comes at age 25, and
can be lost on conviction for crime. It is strongly implied that at
least some laws are passed by direct refeerendums, and many others are
passed by a legislature very much alive to popular opnion and pols and
demonstrations. Aroused public opnion (even if ill-informed public
opnion) is shown as the decisive political factor at the end of "The
Defensless Dead"
No effective constitutiuonal democracy/republic that I know of
effectivly prevents an overwhelming long-term public consensus from
driving policy on any issue, and at least arguably, nor should it.
Under the US constitution, the only 'unchangable' provisdions are on
prohibiting the slave trade before 1808, and the equal representation
in the senate. Anything else is subject to admendment by its own
terms.
-DES
William December Starr
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> said:
> William December Starr wrote:
>
>> The constitution is part _of_ the law.
>
> I don't think you really understood my point, because the
> legislative and judiciary are two separate branches of government.
> One's job is creating new laws; the others is assuring the
> existing laws have fidelity to the Constitution. Those laws that
> don't get chucked out.
>
> That you can sloppily refer to them both collectively as "the law"
> completely misses my point.
Or: that you can sloppily refer to "the law" when you mean "statutory
law"...
Nate Edel
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > There are constitutions, such as Germany's, where a core section is
> > explicitly prohibited from any future changes.
>
> Same with the United States' Constitution and most other constitutions.
> There are parts which are explicitly not subject to amendment.
Only two, and one of them has expired:
"provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand
eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth
clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state,
without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Further, the one remaining rule ("that no state, without its consent, shall
be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate") probably could be itself
amended, and THEN another amendment passed to change the Senate.
Also, we could probably pass a whole new constitution, throwing the other
one out entirely, as long as the ratification process had sufficient public
approval.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |
Howard Brazee
<War...@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>> A constitution is merely a set of laws that are somewhat more
>> difficult to change.
>
>There are constitutions, such as Germany's, where a core section is
>explicitly prohibited from any future changes.
Several countries when faced with such limits have simply thrown out
the Constitution and started over.
Howard Brazee
Starr) wrote:
>Or: that you can sloppily refer to "the law" when you mean "statutory
>law"...
What are the alternative types of laws? Do people refer to those
alternatives as "the law" the way we do statutory laws?
Erik Max Francis
> No effective constitutiuonal democracy/republic that I know of
> effectivly prevents an overwhelming long-term public consensus from
> driving policy on any issue, and at least arguably, nor should it.
Again, that isn't consistent with the historical facts regarding the
moratorium on the death penalty in the United States. The death penalty
has always been very popular, yet the Supreme Court decided that it
violated the Eighth Amendment anyway.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
You'll survive / A true Darwin star
-- Des'ree
Erik Max Francis
> Or: that you can sloppily refer to "the law" when you mean "statutory
> law"...
You can nitpick to your heart's content, but I made the distinction I
was making perfectly clear, and how it was relevant to the subject at
hands. Word games may make you feel better, but don't address the
obvious fact that it still completely misses the entire point of what I
was saying, which was quite clear as a distinction between two branches
of government.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Tim Bruening
William December Starr wrote:
> In article <S_idnaVYdesiheva...@speakeasy.net>,
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> said:
>
> > That's the point. The fact that something is common, or popular,
> > doesn't mean it's constitutional. We of course have no idea what
> > the UN's constitution (or equivalent) says, or how the chief
> > judicial court operates, but it's obviously not working very well
> > if something so blatant as being executed for trivial offenses is
> > allowed to pass unchecked.
> >
> > Which was merely my point all along: The judicial check has failed
> > in the organlegging era.
>
> The judiciary is constrained by the law. If the law sucks, it's the
> lawmakers that have failed.
The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
Tim Bruening
norrin wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:25 am, Peter Bruells <user...@rogue.de> wrote:
> > David Johnston <da...@block.net> writes:
> > > It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> > > unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the
> > > law would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws
> > > about not whistling in public or whatever.
> >
> > If pickpocketing isn't illegal, victims have to grounds to defend
> > themselves.
>
> If a pickpocket does their job right, the target never
> knows who they were. If a purse snatcher does it
> right, somebody notices but not before they're on
> the other side of the street.
>
> > If have no qualms about he police saying "Sorry, catching they guy who
> > picked your pocket is unlikely and we tell you flatly that we won't
> > spend any time on it before we haven't saved this murder, that rape
> > and stopped those white slavers."
> >
> > I object, however, to not being allowed to stab, shoot, hit or
> > otherwise incapacitate someone who tries to steal from me.
>
> Which is why a pickpocket or cutpurse has more
> skill and planning than the average thief, and
> much more skill than the average mugger.
"Death by Ecstasy" (The first Gill "The Arm" Hamilton story) says that
picking pockets is a game of skill. Since Gill has a psychic arm capable of
lifting a full shot glass, I bet that he would make a world champion
pickpocketer. Just lift out the wallet with his psychic arm!
Tim Bruening
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> John Schilling wrote:
>
> > We can make the pretty good guess that it does not disallow anything that
> > was popular at the time it was established, and that it has been amended
> > as necessary to allow things that were once forbidden but have since
> > become sufficiently popular.
> >
> > Also, if it works like the United States Constitution, then in the very
> > specific area of appropriate punishments for crimes, that something is
> > common *does* mean it's constitutional. A punishment has to be cruel
> > *and unusual* to be uncostitutional here.
>
> That doesn't explain why the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional
> for a time here. While not unusual at all, the Supreme Court ruled that
> the way it was employed was unconstitutional since it was unfair. After
> those issues were addressed, it was restored as being constitutional
> again. If what you were saying were true, that couldn't have happened.
Since then, questions about the death penalty's fairness have arisen again, and
a state recently banned capital punishment.
Matthias Warkus
Yes, but that's a somewhat different point. I mean to say that arguing
a constitution, even its most-protected bits, is "merely a set of laws
that are somewhat more difficult to change" because you can effectively
always have a revolution or a plebiscite on a new constitution is akin
to saying that load-bearing concrete walls are merely a little more
difficult to move than drywall because you can always demolish the house
and build a new one.
mawa
Erik Max Francis
> Since then, questions about the death penalty's fairness have arisen again, and
> a state recently banned capital punishment.
It's always been a state issue; several states are vehemently opposed to
it, and that's perfectly fine. What I was talking about was a _federal_
moratorium, which was imposed, and then subsequently lifted once the
issues raised were addressed. That's in direct contradiction of both of
their claims about how things work: If what they're saying were true,
then that moratorium couldn't have happened. But it did.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Diplomacy and defense are not substitutes for one another. Either
alone would fail. -- John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963
James Kuyper
> William December Starr wrote:
...
>> The judiciary is constrained by the law. If the law sucks, it's the
>> lawmakers that have failed.
>
> balance, like in the United States. The judiciary has the duty of
> upholding the constitution, not the law. If a law is found
> unconstitutional by the judiciary, then it is null and void.
In the US, the constitution is a special kind of law, but it is not
something distinct from the law. It is the supreme law, overriding any
lower level laws that conflict with it, but it is still law.
Tim Bruening
James Kuyper wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > "John Spain" <drmanha...@SPAMhotmailME.comNOT> wrote on Mon, 31 Dec 2001
> > 19:41:49 +0100:
> >
> >> "James Kuyper Jr." <kuy...@wizard.net> wrote on Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:25:01 -0500:
> >
> >>> The difference between sodomy and, for instance, embezellment, is not
> >>> enforceability. It is that one of them involves the fully informed
> >>> consent of all affected people, and the other does not. I'd find his
> >>> concept that picking pockets might become legal more plausible, if I
> >>> could see any reason why people would cease to object to having their
> >>> pockets picked.
> >> Well, anything that isn't illegal is legal, by default.
> >>
> >> Consider the psychology of that period's flatlanders: Extremely gregarious,
> >> racially, economically and culturally equal to a great degree, totally
> >> sexually uninhibited and mentally and physically nonagressive.
> >>
> >> Nobody feels threatened by physical contact, and everyone is aware of the
> >> possibility of losing your wallet. In a mostly cashless society with palm
> >> print locks instead of keys, it's no great loss. Presumably unspoken social
> >> rules and nonverbal signals arise that regulate this to a degree. i.e. a
> >> nudist isn't going to get his pockets picked.
> >>
> >> The way it's presented, it's looks to me like a mating game. Remember
> >> Sharrol steals Bey's wallet, what happens afterwards? They get hitched.
> >> Think of picking a someone's wallet as a way of getting their phone number
> >> (The fact they meet through a coincidence later is, I feel, somewhat
> >> improbable unfortunately. But it doesn't change the essence of my argument)
> >
> > How in the world were the nations of Earth persauded to repeal the laws
> > against pickpocketing???? I would expect that any politician proposing
> > the legalization of pickpocketing would have been voted out of office
> > for being "soft on crime"!
>
> Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> model. This requires that pick-pocketing become not merely a commonplace
> activity, but also a popular one. That is, there was not only a large
> fraction of the populace that were victims, but also a large fraction of
> the populace who were perpetrators, say at least 25%.
>
> I consider it extremely unlikely that this would ever be the case, but
> if it were, then decriminalization becomes a natural consequence. That
> would be because a solid electoral majority of people would either be
> pick-pockets, or have friends or relatives that they sympathized with
> who were pickpockets.
In the Niven-verse, pick pocketing is a game of skill. Are there pick pocketing clubs,
or tournaments, or professional leagues? Is there a Pick PAC? Could I take a Pick
Pocketing class at my local high school?
William December Starr
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> said:
>> Or: that you can sloppily refer to "the law" when you mean
>> "statutory law"...
>
> What are the alternative types of laws? Do people refer to those
> alternatives as "the law" the way we do statutory laws?
There's the Constitution, for one. It's part of the law -- the
apex of it, in fact -- but it wasn't created the way that federal
statutes are, by the majority-vote approval of each of the two
houses of Congress plus either (1) the active or passive consent of
the President or (2) a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress
overriding a veto by the President.
And there's also the "common law," which is the sum of judicial
rulings that have (generally speaking) interpreted statutes or
filled in gaps between them.
Erik Max Francis
And, once again, eliminating the distinction between constitutional law
and statutory law completely misses the point of the distinction I was
making.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Love is, above all, the gift of oneself.
-- Jean Anouilh
John Schilling
wrote:
>John Schilling wrote:
>> We can make the pretty good guess that it does not disallow anything that
>> was popular at the time it was established, and that it has been amended
>> as necessary to allow things that were once forbidden but have since
>> become sufficiently popular.
>> Also, if it works like the United States Constitution, then in the very
>> specific area of appropriate punishments for crimes, that something is
>> common *does* mean it's constitutional. A punishment has to be cruel
>> *and unusual* to be uncostitutional here.
>That doesn't explain why the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional
>for a time here. While not unusual at all, the Supreme Court ruled that
>the way it was employed was unconstitutional since it was unfair.
There was not then, and is not now, any crime in the US code for which
death is the *usual* penalty. Well, arguably things like treason and
(literal) piraacy, but those were rare enough that we didn't have a
statistically significant sample of what was usual.
So, whether or not the death penalty was constitutional, hinged on the
issues of A: whether it was cruel, or B: whether one could define a set
of special circumstances under which the death penalty was still usual.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Sc...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Erik Max Francis
> There was not then, and is not now, any crime in the US code for which
> death is the *usual* penalty. Well, arguably things like treason and
> (literal) piraacy, but those were rare enough that we didn't have a
> statistically significant sample of what was usual.
High treason is actually listed in the Constitution itself as a capital
offense.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Tim Bruening
James Kuyper wrote:
In the Niven-verse, pick pocketing is a game of skill. Is there a
website for pick pocketers (www.pickpocket.com)?
Tim Bruening
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> John Schilling wrote:
>
> > There was not then, and is not now, any crime in the US code for which
> > death is the *usual* penalty. Well, arguably things like treason and
> > (literal) piraacy, but those were rare enough that we didn't have a
> > statistically significant sample of what was usual.
>
> High treason is actually listed in the Constitution itself as a capital
> offense.
So a law repealing the death penalty for high treason would be
unconstitutional?
Tim Bruening
Erik Max Francis
> So a law repealing the death penalty for high treason would be
> unconstitutional?
Yep. It would have to be a constitutional amendment.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
It's a winter day / Five years too late
-- En Vogue
David E. Siegel
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > So a law repealing the death penalty for high treason would be
> > unconstitutional?
>
> Yep. It would have to be a constitutional amendment.
>
> --
> San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
> It's a winter day / Five years too late
> -- En Vogue
That is *not* corect. The US Constitution, Articl III, section 3
provides that:
<start quote>
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,
but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
<end quote>
Congress can, by statute, make trason a crime punmished by death, or
by imprisonment for life or some lesser period, or by fine, or by
community service if they so desire, or indeed by slavery. (Art XIII
sec 1 says "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted*, shall exist within the United States..."). No admendment
is needed. What congress cannot do is make conviction of trason
punishable by removing property rights or civil rights from the family
or heirs of the person convicted. This is because forfieture of
inherited land and other rights was often imposed on the entire family
line of a convicted traitor in England under the Tudors and later
monarchs (and sometimes earlier ones, too).
There is no crime for which the US constitution *requires* a death
penalty, nor even one fro which it *explictly* authorizes one. That is
left to either legislative judgement, or judicial interpreation.
-DES
Tim Bruening
David Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:51:21 GMT, James Kuyper
> <james...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Personally, I find it implausible, as indicated in the ancient message
> >you resurrected above. However, if I had to take it as given, and come
> >up with a plausible mechanism, I'd use the repeal of Prohibition as a
> >model.
>
> It seems more likely that as the police found the law increasingly
> unenforcible that they would simply stop trying. Technically the law
> would still be on the books, but as one of those fossil laws about not
> whistling in public or whatever.
But on page 89 of paperback "World Of Ptavvs", One Dale Synder says to
an
ARM (UN cop) named Lucas Garner "Let's suppose that the, uh, Sea Statue
civilization had a law against picking pockets. Most countries, you
know,
had such laws before we got so crowded that the cops couldn't enforce
them". In "Flatlander", a pickpocketer told Beowulf Shaffer in
"Flatlander" that there were no laws against pickpocketing. I therefore
got the impression that all laws banning pickpocketing had been repealed
and physically erased from the law books and legal codes!
I have just figured out why pickpocketing might have been legalized
after it became impossible to stop: so that the pickpocketers would be
more likely to return the wallets after removing the money!
Default User
> John Schilling wrote:
>
> > There was not then, and is not now, any crime in the US code for
> > which death is the usual penalty. Well, arguably things like
> > treason and (literal) piraacy, but those were rare enough that we
> > didn't have a statistically significant sample of what was usual.
>
> High treason is actually listed in the Constitution itself as a
> capital offense.
Not required, of course.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Tim Bruening
pickpocketing became legal on Earth?
Erik Max Francis
> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
>> John Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> There was not then, and is not now, any crime in the US code for
>>> which death is the usual penalty. Well, arguably things like
>>> treason and (literal) piraacy, but those were rare enough that we
>>> didn't have a statistically significant sample of what was usual.
>> High treason is actually listed in the Constitution itself as a
>> capital offense.
>
> Not required, of course.
Granted.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and
we'll be lucky to live through it. -- Adm. Josh Painter
Erik Max Francis
> How do I contact Larry Niven to ask him to explain the history of how
> pickpocketing became legal on Earth?
You don't, if you're going to take seven years to actually finish the
conversation.
James Kuyper
> James Kuyper wrote:
>
>> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>>> William December Starr wrote:
>> ...
>>>> The judiciary is constrained by the law. If the law sucks, it's the
>>>> lawmakers that have failed.
>>>
>>> Not in a government where the judiciary acts as an additional check
>>> and balance, like in the United States. The judiciary has the duty
>>> of upholding the constitution, not the law. If a law is found
>>> unconstitutional by the judiciary, then it is null and void.
>>
>> In the US, the constitution is a special kind of law, but it is not
>> something distinct from the law. It is the supreme law, overriding any
>> lower level laws that conflict with it, but it is still law.
>
> And, once again, eliminating the distinction between constitutional law
> and statutory law completely misses the point of the distinction I was
> making.
No, I recognized the distinction you were making, and rejected it as
irrelevant. William Star's comment was about the law; not statutory law
or constitutional law - just law in general. And as such, it was a
correct statement, and pointing out that "the law" can be subdivided
into smaller categories in no way detracts from the truth of his
statement. The content of the law, as a whole, is fundamentally the
responsibility of the lawmakers - the power of the judiciary is
restricted to resolving conflicts between the different laws that
various lawmakers have passed. When such conflicts exist between the
Constitution and lesser laws, the Constitution is supreme, but it is
just a much the product of lawmakers as any other law.
Howard Brazee
<tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>But on page 89 of paperback "World Of Ptavvs", One Dale Synder says to
>an
>ARM (UN cop) named Lucas Garner "Let's suppose that the, uh, Sea Statue
>civilization had a law against picking pockets. Most countries, you
>know,
>had such laws before we got so crowded that the cops couldn't enforce
>them". In "Flatlander", a pickpocketer told Beowulf Shaffer in
>"Flatlander" that there were no laws against pickpocketing. I therefore
>got the impression that all laws banning pickpocketing had been repealed
>and physically erased from the law books and legal codes!
>
>I have just figured out why pickpocketing might have been legalized
>after it became impossible to stop: so that the pickpocketers would be
>more likely to return the wallets after removing the money!
The trouble with this logic is that we don't need a law against
pickpocketing - all we need is a law against stealing. So in his
environment I expect there's a law against stealing and laws listing
when the first law doesn't apply.
I don't see it. Maybe there's a law telling police not to worry
about pickpocketing. Unless the victims are lawmakers, of course.
Quadibloc
> William December Starr wrote:
> > Or: that you can sloppily refer to "the law" when you mean "statutory
> > law"...
>
> You can nitpick to your heart's content, but I made the distinction I
> was making perfectly clear, and how it was relevant to the subject at
> hands. Word games may make you feel better, but don't address the
> obvious fact that it still completely misses the entire point of what I
> was saying, which was quite clear as a distinction between two branches
> of government.
The "nitpick" is actually quite useful because it addresses an
important point.
The purpose of the judiciary *is* to uphold the law. All of it. It
strikes down statutes when they conflict with the constitution, to the
inconvenience of legislatures, it is true. But it also upholds
statutes when they conflict with the practice of bureaucrats or
policemen, also to the inconvenience of legislatures.
Therefore, to be accurate, what you should have said is that the
purpose of the judiciary is to uphold the law - not to implement the
will of the government of the day. Often, but not always, when the law
conflicts with the wish of the government of the day, the source of
that conflict will be directly in the Constitution itself.
Of course, it's certainly true the courts don't "uphold the law" in
quite the same sense as the police "uphold the law". The police are
focused on apprehending and convicting offenders, solving and
preventing crimes. The judiciary is focused on ensuring the law is
followed according to its rules, whether or not the impact is
necessarily positive from the point of view of crime prevention.
But that fact can be a source of confusion if distinctions are not
carefully made.
John Savard
Quadibloc
wrote:
> In article <S_idnaVYdesihevanZ2dnUVZ_rLin...@speakeasy.net>,
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> said:
>
> > That's the point. The fact that something is common, or popular,
> > doesn't mean it's constitutional. We of course have no idea what
> > the UN's constitution (or equivalent) says, or how the chief
> > judicial court operates, but it's obviously not working very well
> > if something so blatant as being executed for trivial offenses is
> > allowed to pass unchecked.
>
> > Which was merely my point all along: The judicial check has failed
> > in the organlegging era.
>
> lawmakers that have failed.
The judiciary can fail too; that is, the Constitution might have
prohibited certain laws, but the judiciary might have failed to find
them unconstitutional.
As I've noted, I figure that if pickpocketing became legal simply
because crowded conditions made the law unenforceable, there must have
been some rule, perhaps Constitutional, that prevented unused or
unenforced laws from staying on the books - because, as it was rightly
pointed out, what politician would think it was popular to legalize
pickpocketing?
I don't know for sure if this was a Larry Niven story, but the one I
remember that had the death penalty for minor crimes made dramatic was
about someone who went on a rampage, destroying transplant organs,
after being sentenced to death for running a red light on three
occasions and speeding on multiple occasions.
Why would that be cruel and unusual punishment? He placed the lives of
others in danger by his voluntary and willful actions. Responsible
citizens, who might through no fault of their own become desperately
in need of an organ transplant, couldn't really be expected to have
any sympathy for someone who introduces more death and suffering into
the world.
Cruel and unusual punishment means things like torture and
degradation. Those kinds of punishment are meant to be banned
absolutely, regardless of what crime the criminal was convicted of.
Thus, even Osama bin Laden would have a case if any prison he was sent
to failed to take adequate precautions to ensure that other prisoners
did not sodomize him.
But how *severe* a punishment might be before it becomes inappropriate
- that's a subjective matter. So you can't really expect the courts to
rule on that.
Wait a moment - doesn't that section of the Constitution also say "nor
excessive fines imposed"? Yes, but here "excessive" must therefore
relate, not to the offence, but to the income of the average American,
so that no crime exists where one can avoid jail by just paying a fine
- but only if one is wealthy. So it's un-Constitutional to set the
rate for a parking ticket at $10,000, but not un-Constitutional to
send everyone, rich or poor, to jail for overtime parking.
John Savard
Joseph Nebus
>John Schilling wrote:
>> There was not then, and is not now, any crime in the US code for which
>> death is the *usual* penalty. Well, arguably things like treason and
>> (literal) piraacy, but those were rare enough that we didn't have a
>> statistically significant sample of what was usual.
>High treason is actually listed in the Constitution itself as a capital
>offense.
In the United States Constitution?
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schilling
> Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> writes:
>
>> John Schilling wrote:
>
>>> There was not then, and is not now, any crime in the US code for
>>> which death is the *usual* penalty. Well, arguably things like
>>> treason and (literal) piraacy, but those were rare enough that we
>>> didn't have a statistically significant sample of what was usual.
>
>> High treason is actually listed in the Constitution itself as a
>> capital offense.
>
> In the United States Constitution?
It is defined in the Constitution, but no particular penalty is
described for it:
---------------------------------
Section III.3 - Treason Note
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason,
but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
----------------------------------
Note that the purpose of this section is to limit the legal definition
of treason to genuinely treasonous acts, rather than allowing it to be
charged Anne Coulterishly.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> It is defined in the Constitution, but no particular penalty is
> described for it:
> ---------------------------------
> Section III.3 - Treason Note
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
> against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
> Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
> Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
> open Court.
> The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason,
> but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
> Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> ----------------------------------
> Note that the purpose of this section is to limit the legal definition
> of treason to genuinely treasonous acts, rather than allowing it to be
> charged Anne Coulterishly.
That limitation is indeed broad, however.
It prevents people from being convicted of treason, for example, who
corrupt the democratic system, such as people who stuff ballot boxes,
government officials who demand bribes, or police officers who plant
evidence. Also, the requirement of witnesses to the treasonous act
itself lets out treason that is detected by careful police work and
modern scientific evidence.
At least, though, there are other serious offences of which those who
are only caught with difficulty in betraying America's defense secrets
can be convicted. So it's not anything like, say, requiring four
(male!) witnesses to convict someone of rape.
John Savard
David DeLaney
>I don't know for sure if this was a Larry Niven story, but the one I
>remember that had the death penalty for minor crimes made dramatic was
>about someone who went on a rampage, destroying transplant organs,
>after being sentenced to death for running a red light on three
>occasions and speeding on multiple occasions.
It's been a YASID earlier in this very thread, in fact: The Jigsaw Man,
visible in All The Myriad Ways. (And yes, it's Niven.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Erik Max Francis
> No, I recognized the distinction you were making, and rejected it as
> irrelevant. William Star's comment was about the law; not statutory law
> or constitutional law - just law in general.
And he was responding to a post where I was making the distinction for a
very specific and fairly obvious reason, which has been lost in the
nitpicking.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
All your slick moves / They were once innocent moves
-- Sade
Erik Max Francis
> But on page 89 of paperback "World Of Ptavvs", One Dale Synder says to
> an
> ARM (UN cop) named Lucas Garner "Let's suppose that the, uh, Sea Statue
> civilization had a law against picking pockets. Most countries, you
> know,
> had such laws before we got so crowded that the cops couldn't enforce
> them". In "Flatlander", a pickpocketer told Beowulf Shaffer in
> "Flatlander" that there were no laws against pickpocketing. I therefore
> got the impression that all laws banning pickpocketing had been repealed
> and physically erased from the law books and legal codes!
Yes, the overarching implication is not just that the practice has been
decriminalized in the sense of it's no longer enforced, but rather that
it has been fully legalized and it is no longer in violation of any law
whatsoever. In other words, it's not that the police won't help you;
it's that the pickpockets _aren't doing anything wrong_.
> I have just figured out why pickpocketing might have been legalized
> after it became impossible to stop: so that the pickpocketers would be
> more likely to return the wallets after removing the money!
You've absolutely no incentive to return the wallet if you can't be
caught, and especially if _there is no law against what you're doing_.
The premise here is that it was legalized because it was impossible to
enforce. If so, even before it was legalized, there is zero incentive
to return the wallet, because you cannot possibly be identified. After
it's legalized, you're not even committing a crime anymore, so you're
free and clear to do whatever you like.
This is why the notion is so fundamentally goofy.
Howard Brazee
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> High treason is actually listed in the Constitution itself as a
>>> capital offense.
>>
>> In the United States Constitution?
>
>It is defined in the Constitution, but no particular penalty is
>described for it:
I've never been comfortable that states (and churches) put themselves
above their people.
Ginevra M. Longbottom
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> I don't know for sure if this was a Larry Niven story, but the one I
>> remember that had the death penalty for minor crimes made dramatic was
>> about someone who went on a rampage, destroying transplant organs,
>> after being sentenced to death for running a red light on three
>> occasions and speeding on multiple occasions.
> It's been a YASID earlier in this very thread, in fact: The Jigsaw Man,
> visible in All The Myriad Ways. (And yes, it's Niven.)
What is a YASID, please?
Ginevra
--
Purple rolling N'veen
Quadibloc
> I've never been comfortable that states (and churches) put themselves
> above their people.
Some states and some churches do indeed do that; they regard
individuals as existing to serve them.
But a democratic nation exists to promote and protect the well-being
of the people who compose it. Regular free elections ensure that the
government is answerable to the people, and remains their agent.
It is still possible for an individual to commit a crime against the
whole. Just as an individual may commit a crime of theft or murder
against another individual, he may commit a crime aimed at ending the
freedom of the people of the nation, one aimed at replacing democracy
with tyranny: his own, or that of a foreign enemy.
Such a crime remains a severe crime, therefore, even in a polity in
which the government serves the people, because it is ultimately a
crime against the masses of the people which the government is
obediently serving. It's true that today's democracies have inherited
the forms of the Roman republic - which degenerated into tyranny -
rather than Periclean Athens, but in a country the size of the United
States, running it by a town hall meeting just wouldn't cut it. Maybe
when they get a hack-proof Internet.
John Savard
il...@rcn.com
> decriminalized in the sense of it's no longer enforced, but rather that
> it has been fully legalized and it is no longer in violation of any law
> whatsoever. In other words, it's not that the police won't help you;
> it's that the pickpockets _aren't doing anything wrong_.
>
> > I have just figured out why pickpocketing might have been legalized
> > after it became impossible to stop: so that the pickpocketers would be
> > more likely to return the wallets after removing the money!
>
> You've absolutely no incentive to return the wallet if you can't be
> caught, and especially if _there is no law against what you're doing_.
> The premise here is that it was legalized because it was impossible to
> enforce. If so, even before it was legalized, there is zero incentive
> to return the wallet, because you cannot possibly be identified. After
> it's legalized, you're not even committing a crime anymore, so you're
> free and clear to do whatever you like.
>
> This is why the notion is so fundamentally goofy.
Not *entirely* goofy -- Niven explains that in Beowulf Schaeffer's
time pickpocketing is essentially a game of skill. If you notice the
pickpocket and catch his hand, you win. If you don't, he wins.
Returning your wallet afterwards is "common courtesy" -- failing to do
so is legal, but unsportsmanlike.
Bill Snyder
Yet Another Story ID (request).
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Quadibloc
> Not *entirely* goofy -- Niven explains that in Beowulf Schaeffer's
> time pickpocketing is essentially a game of skill. If you notice the
> pickpocket and catch his hand, you win. If you don't, he wins.
> Returning your wallet afterwards is "common courtesy" -- failing to do
> so is legal, but unsportsmanlike.
Ah, so this is not the kind of world I envisaged based solely on the
data in the initial post, it really is a _cultural_ difference.
I was thinking of a world like our own, where pickpocketing is still
regarded with contempt as an evil crime, but overcrowding made it hard
to enforce it, and some other factor led to a Constitutional ban on
unenforceable laws - and so I proposed a possible mechanism as to how
that might come about (to prevent hidden bias in selective enforcement
of laws).
But given this, Larry Niven's story takes place in some other kind of
world.
John Savard
Wayne Throop
: Niven explains that in Beowulf Schaeffer's time pickpocketing is
: essentially a game of skill. If you notice the pickpocket and catch
: his hand, you win. If you don't, he wins. Returning your wallet
: afterwards is "common courtesy" -- failing to do so is legal, but
: unsportsmanlike.
You mean, they face each other as God intended, nothing unsportsmanlike,
no tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone? One doesn't hide his
wallet, the other doesn't cut his pocket, and they try to steal from each
other like civilized people?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw