I’m thinking about the states but I guess this applies to other countries as well.
Only a very small percentage of cases are being worked on at any one time - rooms full of evidence are being stacked-up and left because there isn’t the human resources or money to process it.
We’ve just seen a 20/20 documentary looking at rape cases in the States. I can’t recall the number that aren’t being processed but it was in the thousands and to prove a point, 20/20 paid for 50 cases to be processed - causing five rape cases, two of which were also murder cases to be solved.
If this is the case, making new laws is kind of redundant isn’t it?
If the ones already in place can’t be policed - what’s the point of making more.
And so the lack of gun control in the states means that more and more guns are in criminal hands - if there isn’t the money to catch these criminals, wouldn’t gun control and taking guns out of circulation be the answer??
-
Your last paragraph does not seem to follow the rest of your post at all.
-
Shouldn’t this be in GD?
3.The making of new laws doesn’t have anything to do with how well you think the old ones are being addressed - are you suggesting that people should be allowed to get away with things from now on until we get the backfiles of cases done, and then only address law-breaking one case at a time so we don’t continue to get backlogged? That would let people doing Bad Things get away even more than the very existence of the backlog does. (Does that make any sense?) And wouldn’t gun control just be more laws, which you seem to be opposed to in theory?
Yeah, the gun laws thing should be left out.
There’s certainly a point to be made that making more things illegal is pointless if resources are strained currently.
But that’s why I’m all for taking a hard look at the laws and decriminalizing those we feel are less important. Get back to them when there’s money and time.
Sorry, I didn’t make my thoughts clear.
I was thinking about people calling for anti-sniper gun laws. Is this not a waste of resource - wouldn’t it be better to make all guns illegal instead of trying to introduce more individuals laws pertaining to ‘type of gun’?
And no, I don’t think people should get away with crime - they do, not because a law isn’t there, but because a law is there but it can’t be enforced.
On limited resources wouldn’t it be better to spend money and time on policing already adaquate laws already in place than making new ones?
I still don’t understand what the failure of our justice system to process evidence on active rape cases has to do with gun control.
On one hand, you state that we should spend money and time on enforcing existing laws, then you suggest that we make new laws to make all guns illegal?
And gun control laws function more to disarm law abiding citizens, than to disarm criminals. How does that address the problem of insufficient resources to process evidence?
Why should law abiding citizens not be allowed to own guns? How will that help the justice system to solve crimes?
Do you really think they’re going to be able to enforce “making all guns illegal”? They aren’t very successful at banning certain other objects.
I think he means that if the state is not going to enforce rape laws, rape should be made legal. This frees up time that can be spent on “real” crimes like owning guns.
Unless necrophilia is rape, a rapist won’t need a sniper rifle, so pass a law against one or the other. With limited resources, the state can’t enforce both laws.
OK, I lost the point of the OP. 
Yeah, sure. I mean I guess so. Ain’t a terribly clearly phrased thesis to debate, but it sure as hell doesn’t belong in MPSIMS.
Off we go . . .
Exactly what is this “lack of gun control” of which you speak? This is a kinda stupid statistic, but there are over 22,000 state and federal “gun control” laws already on the books in the United States.
P’haps. But we have this little thing called the Constitution, one part of which—The Bill of Rights—guarantees the right of the citizens to keep arms. Kinda hard to completely outlaw 'em with that pesky 2nd amendment still extant. To render the 2nd amendment null and void, both houses of Congress must first pass a bill (by a two-thirds majority) which is then normally sent to the legislatures of the fifty states, where it must be approved by three-quarters of them. Only through this process can the Constitution be modified so as to ban all firearms.
I would suggest this might be just a little bit more difficult than outlawing a certain category of firearm. Which incidently, has been done many times in many portions of the United States.
“in the criminal justice system there are two separate, yet equally important groups:
the police who investigate crimes
and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders”
What i understand the op to be is
Maybe we should take a break from making new laws untill we’re all caught up with the laws we’re busy enforcing now. ???
i think
either way, is seems like the rape cases thing is a matter of resources being put where theyre needed in order to work on cases (meaning the police departments need more money)
and gun control, well, outlawing sniper rifles is a small step in making our 2nd ammendment rights more applicable in the modern world of gun technology
side note: although i do know a guy who used an AK-47 to fend off a bear that intruded his home, trashed the place. He waited for it, it broke in a 2nd time and he shot it. Had pictures of a dead bear and himself on his couch to prove it. Here’s to you Jake!
he may be the exception in terms of high powered rifle owners though.
—And gun control laws function more to disarm law abiding citizens—
Of course, most people are law-abiding PRIOR to their illegal use of the gun, that’s the whole problem. And they continue to be law abiding right up until the time they shoot their kids, spouse, etc.
Not that I think guns should be outlawed as either a practical or ethical matter: but that arguement about “law-abiding citizens” has always rung false to me, given what we know about the general patterns on the misuse of firearms.
in the criminal justice system there are two separate, yet equally important groups:
the police who have their daughters’ murderers murdered, and seem to botch the fourth amendment with every single collar,
and the law-bending district attorneys who sleep with every female assisant in their employ
Yes.
I’m gonna have to say…Cite? I find it hard to believe that citizens without a criminal background who were not engaged in some sort of larceny-type activity commit most crimes involving guns.
In terms of legal theory, the OP has a point, though his/her focus is off. To wit –
Laws should not be enacted that will be routinely violated.
The idea is that laws that encourage the populace to become “cafeteria law-abiders” (I’ll obey the no-murder and no-arson laws, but I scoff at the 55 mph speed limit, I’ll light up a joint, and I’ll drink that beer when I’m 20), merely serve to cause disrespect for laws in general. The argument is that, if the lawgiver is so idiotic as to try to mandate I go 55 mph on an empty highway, I’m going to start questioning the lawgiver’s wisdom and start substituting my judgment for that of the lawgiver.
So laws shouldn’t be enacted that allow the populace to reasonably call the wisdom of the lawgiver into question.
That, of course, doesn’t mean that new laws should not be enacted because there aren’t sufficient resources expended to investigate and prosecute the violators of old laws. The proper amount of resources to expend on law enforcement is a separate issue, though concededly a new law, even one that is proper and wise, should not be enacted if there is no realistic possibility that it will be enforceable.
Sua
In terms of legal theory, the OP has a point, though his/her focus is off. To wit –
Laws should not be enacted that will be routinely violated.
The idea is that laws that encourage the populace to become “cafeteria law-abiders” (I’ll obey the no-murder and no-arson laws, but I scoff at the 55 mph speed limit, I’ll light up a joint, and I’ll drink that beer when I’m 20), merely serve to cause disrespect for laws in general. The argument is that, if the lawgiver is so idiotic as to try to mandate I go 55 mph on an empty highway, I’m going to start questioning the lawgiver’s wisdom and start substituting my judgment for that of the lawgiver.
So laws shouldn’t be enacted that allow the populace to reasonably call the wisdom of the lawgiver into question.
That, of course, doesn’t mean that new laws should not be enacted because there aren’t sufficient resources expended to investigate and prosecute the violators of old laws. The proper amount of resources to expend on law enforcement is a separate issue, though concededly a new law, even one that is proper and wise, should not be enacted if there is no realistic possibility that it will be enforceable.
Sua
It rings “false?” Are you speaking of the pattern that shows a vastly overewhelming number of gun owners never commit crimes with their guns? Or the patten that shows a vastly overwhelming number of the guns in existence in the United States are never used in the commission of a crime, guns that are, from a legal perspective, never misused. Where’s the “false ringing” you’re hearing. Just what “general pattern of misuse” are you speaking of? I don’t understand your point. That is, if you are indeed making one.
And I, too, would like to see the cite Sgt. J has asked for.
You wouldn’t happen to have any evidence that this is the case, would you? I find it hard to believe that most criminals used a firearm in commission of their very first crime. I find it much more likely that a criminal would have committed a series of lesser crimes before leading up to using a firearm in commission of a crime. If you know something the rest of us don’t then please share.
Marc
Do you say this as a matter of practicality or a matter of "proper and wise"ness? (honest question, poor phrasing ;))
A bit of both, erislover. As a matter of “proper and wiseness”, most unenforceable laws would be victimless crimes, and I’m opposed to such laws.
As a practical matter, a small town out in the boonies shouldn’t pass a law stating that cars parked in front of fire hydrants will be towed, even though such a law is proper and wise, if the town doesn’t own a tow truck, and no private tow trucks are available to help enforce the law.
Sua