81–90 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It just always makes me chuckle when criminals won't face the fact that they are criminals. "I know, right? Why don't all those damn sodomites just take their chemical castration and shut up and accept the fact they're criminals?"
My favorite legal defense, moral relativism. "One day, this heinous crime I have committed might not be illegal. Knowing that, how can you possibly convict me!?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my understanding of the US legal system is that Feds really get to choose which laws they are going or not going to enforce. At the top level it is what is called executive action and power of pardon. For example, Obama has followed moral instead of laws in his immigration actions.
In two hours, the marijuana situation in Berlin is going to change significantly because two senators decided to amend the enforcement policy. Basically, German law allows for declining to prosecute the possession of small quantities. But the exact policy is set by each state, and is not actually a law. So as of March 31st, there will be a zero tolerance policy in one specific park. It's one of the weirder and more s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i agree. recently i desired to create an online community for a small game that probably wouldn't have many users or posts. subreddits are fantastic for that type of thing, and i like the ease of use and PRAW, however, handing over all of the community's data to conde nast isn't something i'm interested in. what i'd like is a tool with which to create online communities, which would consist of a message board with up…
Reddit is no longer owned by Conde Nast. It was moved to the same parent company that owns Conde Nast and then spun off. http://www.redditblog.com/2013/08/reddit-myth-busters_6.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>they are criminals They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior. Why should they have to "make a choice" and make "better decisions" when they don't believe what they've done is wrong?
Bernie Madoff didn't think he was doing anything wrong either. Why should he have to make a choice? The only reason you are making this comment is because you don't believe drugs (and drug dealing) should be illegal.
In fact, as others have pointed out, doing so is even legally recognized in the form of jury nullification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This matter is beyond using or selling drugs. The definition of crime is based on a law which isn't necessarily morally right. For example, in my country, discussing LGBT or even marijuana would get you into serious trouble. Hence, as internet users, we should look beyond our time and space, ensuring freedom of speech.
The definition of crime is based on a law which isn't necessarily morally right. So what is the correct action for the Fed? To ignore the law and not enforce it?
Warning: this opinion probably won't fit into the HN zeitgeist. If you commit a crime online don't be surprised when they seek to gain evidence against you. This isn't a liberty issue. This is a you're probably a criminal issue and law enforcement is coming after you. I don't protect drug dealers in my neighborhood because of their right to free speech and personal liberty so why would I protect these guys? It just a…
I think most people, criminals or otherwise, understand this quite well. In fact, I'd guess that criminals understand it better than non-criminals.
What some people don't seem to understand (or even want to think about) is that the law is often a pitiful and nationally embarrasing reflection of ethics. Laws don't get passed because they are good, or helpful, or promote some positive thing. They get passed because enough politicians could be convinced (sometimes by bribery, sometimes by real or implied threats) to vote for them. Why anyone imagines that the resulting laws have a significant correlation with what's good for an individual's rights and freedom is totally beyond me.
Gandhi, MLK, and the U.S. Founding Fathers were all criminals of their times. Sometimes the world needs people to break the law to show how broken the law really is. If you or anyone else judges them solely because the label "criminal" applies to them, then I have no pity for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a hypothetical situation that will give you some perspective to consider: Eating unhealthy food with a high fat and sugar content in your country is highly illegal. In this hypothetical country you live in, the offence of eating unhealthy food is a felony and punishable by time in prison. This law makes sense: It's for the good of the people. It's a victimless crime, but the war on unhealthy food needs to be e…
Damn straight. Where do I sign up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>they are criminals They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior. Why should they have to "make a choice" and make "better decisions" when they don't believe what they've done is wrong?
Bernie Madoff didn't think he was doing anything wrong either. Why should he have to make a choice? The only reason you are making this comment is because you don't believe drugs (and drug dealing) should be illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>they are criminals They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior. Why should they have to "make a choice" and make "better decisions" when they don't believe what they've done is wrong?
They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior. They should probably still accept the reality of the punishment, at least until the law is modified. Disobeying a law for moral reasons is only the first half of civil disobedience.
Warning: this opinion probably won't fit into the HN zeitgeist. If you commit a crime online don't be surprised when they seek to gain evidence against you. This isn't a liberty issue. This is a you're probably a criminal issue and law enforcement is coming after you. I don't protect drug dealers in my neighborhood because of their right to free speech and personal liberty so why would I protect these guys? It just a…
I can understand that attitude, I don't think there's many on HN who would openly support the public sale of firearms with their serial numbers filed off. Anti-terroism laws are great, the problem is that everyone is a terroist. Anti-criminal laws are great, the problem is that everyone is a criminal. Anti-drug laws can also be great, the problem is that relatively safe drugs are incredibly illegal, and applied typic…
If we assume a definition of great that allows the following sentence to be true: Racial discrimination can be great.