41–50 of 71 posts
Summary: Young man has a passion & dream to make movies. He has a thriving business but it's not enough to fund the movie. His friends agree to fund a movie but with a clause - it must be a porno movie. He researches existing literature and it sucks. He won't make porn. He'll make a real movie that also has explicit sex. He shoots normal scenes first, and sex scenes later. Sex scenes has some issues like the actors u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selective enforcement is absolutely a miscarriage of justice. Justice is the character of law that makes it fair. If you disagree with this, I would like to hear your defense.
Selective enforcement may or may not be a miscarriage of justice. Here, you have a law where changing standards of morality may have rendered the full scope of the law obsolete. But there is conduct within the scope of the law that the community still considers egregious. I don’t think it is “unfair” to enforce the law against that conduct, but not enforce it against other conduct the community no longer considers wr…
Those laws should never have been used, and if the community wanted to dissuade future productions, they should have passed laws at the city, county, or state level that allows for the proper checks and balances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you implying laws should be ignored after a few years go by? That’s not how laws work. Many of the laws that our important to daily life are hundreds of years old.
I think that’d be a wonderful thing if all laws had a natural sunset clause and were forced to be renewed to see if they confirm to the standards of the current society. Private lewdness was one of the charges. Even the prosecutor said that it was all a bit over the top but he had these laws as tools so he used them.
This way the legislative branch has pressure to amend the criminal code as it becomes obsolete---in this case, imagine if people had started accusing others of fornication and private lewdness left and right, and DAs through the state were forced to follow up on those accusations...
Summary: Young man has a passion & dream to make movies. He has a thriving business but it's not enough to fund the movie. His friends agree to fund a movie but with a clause - it must be a porno movie. He researches existing literature and it sucks. He won't make porn. He'll make a real movie that also has explicit sex. He shoots normal scenes first, and sex scenes later. Sex scenes has some issues like the actors u…
Are you implying laws should be ignored after a few years go by? That’s not how laws work. Many of the laws that our important to daily life are hundreds of years old.
Any law that’s important gets used and enforced regularly. The incentives of the modern bureaucratic state mean that any law that is used regularly will eventually be superseded by a more specific law that covers the circumstances more specifically; that’s why there are laws for mail fraud, computer fraud,, wire fraud etc. instead of just prosecuting people for fraud.
Any prosecution that relies on using a law that hasn’t been enforced in multiple decades is an obvious instance of prosecutorial discretion, i.e. injustice.
It’s like how the FBI works; they may not be able to prove you did what they started investigating you for but if they catch you lying about anything you can be prosecuted for it and it’s really easy to catch someone in a lie if interviews aren’t recorded but reconstructed from the agent’s notes after the fact.
Law enforcement can either follow rules and principles or it can be “We’re going to get these bastards.” The latter is corrupt. Laws long unenforced should lapse unless explicitly renewed.
Summary: Young man has a passion & dream to make movies. He has a thriving business but it's not enough to fund the movie. His friends agree to fund a movie but with a clause - it must be a porno movie. He researches existing literature and it sucks. He won't make porn. He'll make a real movie that also has explicit sex. He shoots normal scenes first, and sex scenes later. Sex scenes has some issues like the actors u…
Are you implying laws should be ignored after a few years go by? That’s not how laws work. Many of the laws that our important to daily life are hundreds of years old.
Summary: Young man has a passion & dream to make movies. He has a thriving business but it's not enough to fund the movie. His friends agree to fund a movie but with a clause - it must be a porno movie. He researches existing literature and it sucks. He won't make porn. He'll make a real movie that also has explicit sex. He shoots normal scenes first, and sex scenes later. Sex scenes has some issues like the actors u…
Are you implying laws should be ignored after a few years go by? That’s not how laws work. Many of the laws that our important to daily life are hundreds of years old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that’d be a wonderful thing if all laws had a natural sunset clause and were forced to be renewed to see if they confirm to the standards of the current society. Private lewdness was one of the charges. Even the prosecutor said that it was all a bit over the top but he had these laws as tools so he used them.
In some jurisdictions (especially civil law, I think) the DA has no discretion and must follow up on any accusation that could lead to criminal charges. There is no possibility for selective enforcement. This way the legislative branch has pressure to amend the criminal code as it becomes obsolete---in this case, imagine if people had started accusing others of fornication and private lewdness left and right, and DAs…
There are huge holes in that. What if, hypothetically, the DA looks at a situation and says 'there is no chance of criminal charges', but some 40-60% of the population thinks there should be?
There is even a fairly topical case of that where a substantial number of Democrat lawmakers are upset with how Barr is handling the Muller report. Imagine squaring a similar case with a law that says prosecution must proceed - I think Barr would be quite happy to claim there is no chance that an Obstruction case would lead to criminal charges.
In the confrontational Western-style justice system the prosecutor always has discretion. Not to acknowledge that just muddies the water in difficult cases. It is much safer to accept that selective enforcement happens, that sometimes the justice system fails to deliver justice and that there need to be release valves in how people are appointed so the abuses don't get out of hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selective enforcement is absolutely a miscarriage of justice. Justice is the character of law that makes it fair. If you disagree with this, I would like to hear your defense.
The world is an inherently unfair place so it's dubious that laws that attempt to regulate it should be fair.
However we can't formally accept that as a society without kicking out one of the main pillars supporting the justice system. If we expect and accept that the justice system to produce unfair outcomes it becomes challenging to justify having court appearances. We could get unfair outcomes much more efficiently by just letting the police and DA arrest whoever with regular internal purges against corruption.
Summary: Young man has a passion & dream to make movies. He has a thriving business but it's not enough to fund the movie. His friends agree to fund a movie but with a clause - it must be a porno movie. He researches existing literature and it sucks. He won't make porn. He'll make a real movie that also has explicit sex. He shoots normal scenes first, and sex scenes later. Sex scenes has some issues like the actors u…
Are you implying laws should be ignored after a few years go by? That’s not how laws work. Many of the laws that our important to daily life are hundreds of years old.
How unapologetic the prosecutor still is offends me. Trying to use anti fornication laws from 1796 and knowing it's a miscarriage of justice? Yet still thinks it's the right decision.
We have an adversarial system by design. We generally think it's a good thing that defence lawyers will defend even a guilty person as vigorously as they can; shouldn't the same apply to prosecutors?
Add to that the costs of defending a court case, and the prosecutor has more-or-less complete power - they can financially ruin someone at will, just (as in this case) by deciding to enforce an obscure law that the defendant didn't even know about.
So making the prosecutors adverserial to the citizens, while giving them absolute power to destroy anyone they don't like, is a recipe for corruption.