Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Naming laws after victims of crime

Page 2 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,157

02 Apr 2013, 2:49 pm

FMX wrote:
Does anyone else feel strongly about the US custom of naming laws after victims of crime? I'm saddened to see that India is now considering naming a law after the victim of the much-publicised gang-rape. If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about here's a list of such laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_le ... r_a_person

I can see a huge downside to this practice: a great danger that people will support the law out of positive emotion towards the victim. Needless to say, that is not a valid reason to support a law. They probably can't help but feel that by voting for or against the law they're voting for or against that sweet little girl who suffered so much! (And yes, it's almost always a girl.) This is nothing but a ploy by proponents of the law to stifle any rational debate about its merits. An additional, lesser downside is that referring to the law by a person's name provides less information - nobody can infer anything about the law from that name unless they're already familiar with it. And the upsides? I can't see any. I've heard it said that it "honours" the victim somehow, but there are plenty of things that could be named after them without such downsides - a library, a pond, a prison perhaps?


I think it IS good to honor the victim by naming a law for them that's designed to prevent other people from being similarly victimized. This is a good thing. But I also see the pitfalls that you point out - what ought to be done is to name the law for the person after its been passed to avoid garnering a sympathy vote.



CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

06 Apr 2013, 9:14 pm

ruveyn wrote:
CSBurks wrote:
I agree. Laws should be based on reason, not reactionary emotion.


Detestation of a foul deed is "reactionary emotion"? That is interesting. When something vile and evil occurs we should just be calm and cool about it?

And dislike of rape is a mere reactionary emotion? How interesting.

ruveyn


Yeah, really.

And the laws ARE based on reason. We strongly dislike what happened, and want to make it against the rules.



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

06 Apr 2013, 11:28 pm

If I was the victim of an injustice, I would not want the law passed making it illegal to be named after me.

If I survived the injustice, I would have that stigma hanging over my head for the rest of my life, never able to get out from under it.

If I did not survive the injustice, all people would remember me for is that I was a victim.



FMX
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,319

07 Apr 2013, 1:23 am

CaptainTrips222 wrote:
And the laws ARE based on reason. We strongly dislike what happened, and want to make it against the rules.


They MAY be based on reason, but the question in this topic is whether naming them after the victim helps, hinders or does not affect them being based on reason. I believe that it hinders it.



CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

07 Apr 2013, 4:48 pm

FMX wrote:
CaptainTrips222 wrote:
And the laws ARE based on reason. We strongly dislike what happened, and want to make it against the rules.


They MAY be based on reason, but the question in this topic is whether naming them after the victim helps, hinders or does not affect them being based on reason. I believe that it hinders it.


How? :?



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

07 Apr 2013, 6:23 pm

CaptainTrips222 wrote:
FMX wrote:
CaptainTrips222 wrote:
And the laws ARE based on reason. We strongly dislike what happened, and want to make it against the rules.

They MAY be based on reason, but the question in this topic is whether naming them after the victim helps, hinders or does not affect them being based on reason. I believe that it hinders it.

How? :?

The best example is Megans Laws, which mandated public registration of sex offenders; a policy which has so far proven to be ineffective or perhaps even counter-productive in reducing sex offences.



CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

07 Apr 2013, 11:30 pm

GGPViper wrote:
CaptainTrips222 wrote:
FMX wrote:
CaptainTrips222 wrote:
And the laws ARE based on reason. We strongly dislike what happened, and want to make it against the rules.

They MAY be based on reason, but the question in this topic is whether naming them after the victim helps, hinders or does not affect them being based on reason. I believe that it hinders it.

How? :?

The best example is Megans Laws, which mandated public registration of sex offenders; a policy which has so far proven to be ineffective or perhaps even counter-productive in reducing sex offences.


How? :?

I don't see how putting someone's name in front of the law changes its efficacy.



Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

07 Apr 2013, 11:56 pm

I think he's saying the laws don't need to exist and were only passed on the "rational" of "If you don't support this law, you hate Megan!"



FMX
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,319

08 Apr 2013, 1:55 am

Tensu wrote:
I think he's saying the laws don't need to exist and were only passed on the "rational" of "If you don't support this law, you hate Megan!"


Pretty much. It confuses the debate, basically. When people have a choice between listening to reason and listening to emotion most will listen to emotion - and not even know it.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Apr 2013, 4:42 am

CaptainTrips222 wrote:
How? :?

I don't see how putting someone's name in front of the law changes its efficacy.


No one is arguing that the name of the law affects it's efficacy, what's being argued is that attaching the name of a high profile crime victim to a sh***y law increases the chances of said law being passed without examination or scrutiny, as it creates an emotional reaction with political consequences. A hyperbolic hypothetical: The Rape Prevention Act is introduced with a component requiring all males between the ages of 16 and 60 to register as "potential rapists", and anyone who questions or opposes this law is accused of being in favor of rape. I didn't even use a victim's name there, but the principle is the same. To bring things around to an actual issue that I'm very well versed on, this is the same idea at work with the Democrats' recent rhetorical shift of calling their gun control schemes "gun safety", as what kind of jerk could be against safety?

It's all smoke and mirrors, manipulative BS, and the people utilizing it should be called on it. If the law in question is such a good idea, it should be able to pass on it's own merits without the emotional blackmail of tacking a dead kid's name onto it.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez