Let's at least try to base our laws on reality, shall we?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
June 24, 2009 11:50pm CST
There are things in society we just react to, no matter what the realities of the situation might be. Issues that are so frought with emotion, facts and logic end up in the dust heap.
Drunk driving, gun control, pedophilia, homosexuality, AIDS, bird/swine flu, cervical cancer vaccination (or any other vaccination for that matter)... etc. All of these are situations where laws have been passed based on emotion, myth or simple hysteria.
I'm not saying that laws concerning any or all of the above are necessarily bad things. I'm just saying that we don't seem to care what reality is when it comes to some of them.
Let's take Drunk Driving. We know it's dangerous and leads to fatalities and injuries every day. On the other hand, we also know that most drunk drivers make it from point A to point B. How do we know it? Not by any study or government funded research, but by using our brain.
Every night, in every city in every state, people are driving drunk. However, accidents from drunk driving don't happen every night, in every city in every state. Logic would tell what rhetoric refuses to accept.
I have a friend who is an actuary. I asked him once if they could come up with actuarial tables on the ratio of drunk driving to accidents. His reaction was more telling than any of his tables.
He said that it would take a lot of time and research, but yes, such tables could be done. But he went on to say that he hopes no one ever makes such tables because the outcome would only serve to encourage drunk driving.
In other words, logic told him that if someone actually did the research, the world would know the truth... and he was afraid of what society would do with that knowledge.
Can we ever really have a fair and just society as long as we're not willing to base our society on the principles of fairness or justice?
3 people like this
4 responses
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
25 Jun 09
Should logic and statistics override the safety of others though? Because there are drunk driving laws, there are less drunk drivers on the roadways every night, yet an actuary table could not show how many lives have been saved and how many innocent people have not been injured because drunks didn't drive themselves home. You can't build statistacal information on random occurrences like automobile accidents if the focus is on accidents that didn't happen. I fair and just society has to take the safety of the population into account.
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
26 Jun 09
I have to agree with you spall, I have gone out drinking with my friends more times than I can remember and I didn't drive home because I knew that I wouldn't be able to pass the test and would be arrested, I could have killed people if I were driving.
Just a side note but a couple of years ago a drunk driver killed a mother and 7 of her children ranging in ages of 12 to 8 months old. So this drunk killed 8 people and he got 5 years for each person he killed.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
26 Jun 09
I'm the designated driver when my husband and I go out and I've also given friends rides home. I would never want to live with the knowledge that someone was hurt or killed because I let someone behind the wheel who shouldn't have been.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Jun 09
I didn't mean to make the drunk driving laws more lenient, I only said they should be based on reality. What we are too lenient on is the 1st time offender. I read the other day where more accidents are caused by first time offenders than people with multiple drunk driving convictions.
The reality check isn't just about being more lenient, it's also about being harder on those who are more dangerous.
@dawnald (85137)
• Shingle Springs, California
25 Jun 09
Interesting. Just talking about the drunk driving scenario, what would you propose? Right now we have laws that both attempt to prevent drunk driving accidents and laws that deal with the consequences of accidents that actually happen. Are you saying that getting rid of the preventative laws and only having the ones that deal with actual accidents would be more fair and just? We would certainly have fewer people being arrested and prosecuted for drunk driving, but would we have fewer drunk driving accidents? It would certainly save a lot of time and money that is being put into the effort to prevent drunk driving, but at what cost, I wonder?
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Jun 09
No, right now we have a system that allows 4 or 5 (7 or 8 here in Wisconsin) drunk driving convictions before it's taken seriously. Right now we have judges, attorneys general and elected officials getting caught driving drunk and not only keeping their jobs, but getting re-elected.
On the other hand, there is evidence that the multi offenders aren't causing as many accidents as those whose first time getting caught was from causing an accident.
This article isn't about defending drunk drivers (or any of my other examples). It's about basing laws and regulations on reality instead of knee-jerk, heart string reactions.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85137)
• Shingle Springs, California
30 Jun 09
I realize that, but I was zoning in on the drunk driving thing since you gave that as an example.
Sure, laws should be based on reason, not emotion. Doesn't always work that way though.
@rogue13xmen13 (14402)
• United States
25 Jun 09
I think that laws should be passed based on logic, reality, and what works well for people on a whole, not passed based on emotions. When laws are passed on emotions, they could have a negative effect on people. When a law is passed on Logic and what is real, then it seems to work for the betterment of the people.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
28 Jun 09
Emotion may be a good motivator to get legislation started, but the debate shouldn't ever be based on it. It almost always leads to irrational stupidity.
@ra1787 (501)
• Italy
25 Jun 09
i completely quote you, laws should be dictated by logic, and should solve specific real problems, too often laws are passed based on emotions and irrationality, and in many case the emotional aspect is accurately manipulated by people that have interests in having some law passed.
@khayshenz (1384)
• United States
26 Jun 09
You've got some loaded questions - and some good facts (great points). But who's to say what's "fair and just"? Back in the day - stoning someone on the street was considered "fair and just." Obviously - it wasn't "fair and just" to everyone since we've gone a long way from such things (as a society).
How about war - what's so "fair and just" about war?
My point is this - being a "fair and just" society is dynamic. And because we're humans we operate with our emotions, (SOMETIME) logic, and mostly what is affecting us NOW.
The day after 9/11 - war seemed "fair and just." Now that we've spent all kinds of cash on "war against terrorism" and don't have much to show for it (please correct me if i'm wrong with this one!!) - everyone and their momma are against this war! Not so "fair and just" anymore, is it?
