Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Victimless Crimes Amendment (Read 16306 times)
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
Hmmmmm.... I've heard the test idea before. The insurance thing sounds pretty good, but I think that corporate America has a tendency to just look at a bunch of statistics and set a universal age. Maybe emancipation should simply happen when the kid and one parent concur, or on the 18th birthday, whichever comes first. A third trigger could simply be proof that one is living on their own. That is to say, that you are under your parents rules as long as they're supporting you. When you no longer need their financial support, you no longer need them to govern you.
For statutory rape, though, I would still require that the prosecutor prove that the defendant should have known that the younger could not have consented, or that damage would be done to them. All of that stuff was easier to handle when people only slept with people they were in love with or engaged to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
I'm not sure how to re-explain the post. A court decides how much harm has been done to others. If the Constitutional limit on punishment is what one has done to another---I guess I'm not seeing the vaguery, here.
I suppose that's what I mean. If the limit on punishment is what "one has done to another", that's, literally, lex talionis. If somone pokes out your eye, the state will poke yours out too. But somehow, I don't think that's what you literally meant. Yet, that's what you wrote. I'm not affixing blame or saying you didn't read carefully or anything like that. But constitutions are often looked at many years after they're made. And it's difficult to know what something really meant if the idea is not communicated clearly. Case in point: the wording "in proportion to" is incredibly vague, proportion dependant on perspective. I read it, and it seems quite simple and sensible to me.
That's sort of my point. Someone else might look at the same thing and think that their interpretation of the same poor language is simple and sensible too. Now there's a problem--who's right? And that's, unfortunately, what litigation is for. But, we could alleviate the problem greatly by, as best as we could, saying, "Government, this is what you cannot do," instead of saying, "Government, these are the end results that should be avoided." If we don't take the tools away, government has a tendency to do what it wants. And we end up in our current situation where we have constitutional clauses that government does not respect--and often there is no personal remedy for a constitutional violation. I'm not saying proportional punishment is bad or that the clause is defective. But I wouldn't read too much into it that is not there. The amendment in the OP is not written--in any way--to guarantee proportional punishment for criminal offenses. Rather, the purpose is to entirely remove a multitude of behaviors which the state can call criminal--and to stop them from weaseling around that restriction. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
Point well made.
I guess that my bottom line is that, as I read it, the State Constitution seems to forbid punishments for victimless crimes. It's an easy case for me to make in committee, but I obviously cannot on the floor of the House. You literally have to go back and try to read Article 18 from a jail-em-all perspective, and you quickly realize that this provision prevents the courts from dispensing justice with a meat cleaver. We know what "disproportionate" means, and we know what "proportionate" means. I think that we're both pointing to the limitation that human beings have to interpret wording, but we also have a responsibility to remind our elected officials of language in the NH Con that favors less harm done unto others. It's our responsibility to apply the Hypocratic Oath to public policy making, that government should "First do no harm."
Once enough of these guys are in that mindset, the ones who are not following some agenda will tend to come our way.
The mind is a malleable thing. Let malle.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
The insurance thing sounds pretty good, but I think that corporate America has a tendency to just look at a bunch of statistics and set a universal age. I was talking about an insurance system in a “completely free world,” i.e., a voluntaryist society. “Corporate America” doesn’t exist there: Neither “corporations” nor “America” would even exist there.  Maybe emancipation should simply happen when the kid and one parent concur, or on the 18th birthday, whichever comes first. I wouldn’t trust relying on the parents, even one parent to concur. It’d be allowing someone who isn’t a disinterested, neutral third party—in fact, allowing probably the most biased third party (“He’ll always be my baby!”)—to judge when the child is an adult. And 18 would mean that, at least in New Hampshire, the age of consent, the drivers license, age at which one can work, and probably a few things I’m forgetting, would advance by two years. Hardly an improvement. A third trigger could simply be proof that one is living on their own. That is to say, that you are under your parents rules as long as they're supporting you. When you no longer need their financial support, you no longer need them to govern you. That could work, both as a transitional idea in the near term, and as a metric in a voluntaryist society. In such a society, all one would have to do is convince a private arbitrator that the “victim” in some case is really an adult; I’m sure numerous reasonable standards would be employed by a variety of arbitrators. Some could rely on “adult insurance,” others might use this standard, or other standards, or a disjunction thereof. For statutory rape, though, I would still require that the prosecutor prove that the defendant should have known that the younger could not have consented, or that damage would be done to them. Yes. All of that stuff was easier to handle when people only slept with people they were in love with or engaged to.
When was this actually true? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Once enough of these guys are in that mindset, the ones who are not following some agenda will tend to come our way.
That is certainly something many of us hope for. However, even if those events came to pass, that is still not the time to rest upon our laurels  You can send those agenda-followers into remission for a time. But eternal diligence against pernicious encroachments of government is the cost of liberty. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
maxxoccupancy
|
It's just as important to get our basic philosophy out to college students and other young folks. They are experienced enough to see the impracticality of government, and they are young enough to think outside the box. Most libertarians I know were once authoritarian on at least some ideas. The fella who got me into the LP of Washington made the best point ever, which was that, like pickles, the longer we stay in the brine, the more libertarian we get. All of these social events help, especially if we can get other folks to join in. I tried to use kickball to get some folks interested, and I also used my campaign for State House to get people involved. It worked for a short time, but we didn't keep it up, and a lot of organizers didn't realize that we were getting lots of
oops, forgot my train of thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We're in need of volunteers to help out with Freedom Expo. PM one of the organizers (like me) if you'd like to help.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Freedom Expo is at Trinity Parish House, Seabrook, April 27, 2013! (right next to the Post Office)
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
/bump
This was an interesting idea and I’d actually like to see an attempt at submitting this as a CACR. It wouldn’t pass but it’d do a damn fine job of highlighting our best and worst legislators.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
“[Art.] 12-b [Life, Liberty, and Property Protected.] [This State (and its subdivisions)] The State and its subdivisions shall have no standing to commence or maintain any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding against any person unless that person’s acts have, in fact, intentionally deprived another person of his or her life, liberty, or property, by fraud or force; no previous or subsequent enactments of the General Court withstanding. No similar proceeding against property [can] shall be commenced or maintained unless a real owner of the property cannot be identified. [This] The State is not a person for the [above purposes] purposes of this article. Nothing [above prevents this] herein shall prevent the State from commencing or maintaining a civil proceeding to recover possession of, or compensation for substantial damage to, [its property as if it were a person, so long as the State is not afforded any right or privilege that a similarly situated natural person could not exercise] public property.”
Mostly technical word changes in order to bring it in line with the legalese I usually see used around here. Inserting this as Part I, Art. 12-b, with a title of “Life, Liberty, and Property Protected,” sounds good to me.
I also think the last line is somewhat redundant, and that public property is a sufficiently understood and defined term to use there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
“[Art.] 12-b [Life, Liberty, and Property Protected.] [This State (and its subdivisions)] The State and its subdivisions shall have no standing to commence or maintain any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding against any person unless that person’s acts have, in fact, intentionally deprived another person of his or her life, liberty, or property, by fraud or force; no previous or subsequent enactments of the General Court withstanding. No similar proceeding against property [can] shall be commenced or maintained unless a real owner of the property cannot be identified. [This] The State is not a person for the [above purposes] purposes of this article. Nothing [above prevents this] herein shall prevent the State from commencing or maintaining a civil proceeding to recover possession of, or compensation for substantial damage to, [public property as if it were a person, so long as the State is not afforded any right or privilege that a similarly situated natural person could not exercise] public property.”
Mostly technical word changes in order to bring it in line with the legalese I usually see used around here. Inserting this as Part I, Art. 12-b, with a title of “Life, Liberty, and Property Protected,” sounds good to me.
I also think the last line is somewhat redundant, and that public property is a sufficiently understood and defined term to use there.
Funny you bumped this today. I was thinking about this post earlier this morning. 1. First, I try not use "shall". "Shall" can be an ambiguously evil word--use "can", "may", "must", etc. to show definiteness. I follow the drafting line of thinking that we should write what we mean, not to sound or look "legal". 2. Regarding "public property". I see what you mean, and I fixed some of that. Some of it, however, my concern was that the state, upset at these chains, could grant itself greater remedies than are afforded to a natural person. 3. I made some slight tweaks in the middle regarding actions against property with identifiable owners. "The State and its subdivisions have no standing to commence or maintain any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding against any person unless that person’s intentional acts have, in fact, deprived another person of his or her life, liberty, or property, by force or fraud; no previous or subsequent enactments of the General Court withstanding.
No similar proceeding against property can be commenced or maintained unless the real owner of the property cannot be identified. If an owner can be identified, any proceeding to alter ownership to the property must be brought against the owner; nor can the proceeding be commenced or maintained while the State is a party to it.
The State is not a person for the purposes of this article. Except that this article does not prevent the State from commencing or maintaining a civil proceeding to recover possession or compensation for actual and substantial damage to public property, so long as the State is not afforded any right or privilege not afforded to a natural person." |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 30, 2008, 08:41:18 pm by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
/bump
This was an interesting idea and I’d actually like to see an attempt at submitting this as a CACR. It wouldn’t pass but it’d do a damn fine job of highlighting our best and worst legislators.
Hehe. Well, you'd have to find someone to start with. Need some brass ones for that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
1. First, I try not use "shall". "Shall" can be an ambiguously evil word--use "can", "may", "must", etc. to show definiteness. I follow the drafting line of thinking that we should write what we mean, not to sound or look "legal".
In legal parlance, shall is actually a highly specific term of art: It means must with the force of the law behind it. Take a look at how shall is already used in the Constitution to see where I’m coming from here. I think amendments to the Constitution should be written in the same style as the original articles where possible. 2. Regarding "public property". I see what you mean, and I fixed some of that. Some of it, however, my concern was that the state, upset at these chains, could grant itself greater remedies than are afforded to a natural person.
3. I made some slight tweaks in the middle regarding actions against property with identifiable owners.
"The State and its subdivisions have no standing to commence or maintain any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding against any person unless that person’s intentional acts have, in fact, deprived another person of his or her life, liberty, or property, by force or fraud; no previous or subsequent enactments of the General Court withstanding.
No similar proceeding against property can be commenced or maintained unless the real owner of the property cannot be identified. If an owner can be identified, any proceeding to alter ownership to the property must be brought against the owner; nor can the proceeding be commenced or maintained while the State is a party to it.
The State is not a person for the purposes of this article. Except that this article does not prevent the State from commencing or maintaining a civil proceeding to recover possession or compensation for actual and substantial damage to public property, so long as the State is not afforded any right or privilege not afforded to a natural person."
One thing to remember about wording is that the more specific you try to make it, the more holes you open up—whatever you didn’t specify. The law is verbose, but constitutions are written in broad and general language. What you have here is starting to look more like statute than Constitutional article. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
Instead of 12-b, this would also fit nicely as 18-a, immediately following this article:—
“[Art.] 18. [Penalties to be Proportioned to Offenses; True Design of Punishment.] All penalties ought to be proportioned to the nature of the offense. No wise legislature will affix the same punishment to the crimes of theft, forgery , and the like, which they do to those of murder and treason. Where the same undistinguishing severity is exerted against all offenses, the people are led to forget the real distinction in the crimes themselves, and to commit the most flagrant with as little compunction as they do the lightest offenses. For the same reason a multitude of sanguinary laws is both impolitic and unjust. The true design of all punishments being to reform, not to exterminate mankind.”
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
1. First, I try not use "shall". "Shall" can be an ambiguously evil word--use "can", "may", "must", etc. to show definiteness. I follow the drafting line of thinking that we should write what we mean, not to sound or look "legal".
In legal parlance, shall is actually a highly specific term of art: It means must with the force of the law behind it. Shall means "must"--except when it doesn't. "Shall" is the most litigated word, and that is not an honor. Take Black's definitions: - Has a duty to; is required to
- Should
- May
- Will
- Is entitled to
If you mean "must", write "must". One thing to remember about wording is that the more specific you try to make it, the more holes you open up—whatever you didn’t specify. The law is verbose, but constitutions are written in broad and general language. What you have here is starting to look more like statute than Constitutional article.
The law does not need to be verbose, and Constitutions do not need to be written in broad and general language (compare First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Const.; two differrent styles. There are no rules to follow. Both should say what they mean to say--no more; no less. If there is a loophole you want to get rid of, point it out and offer some text to "plug" it. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 08:36:49 am by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
1. First, I try not use "shall". "Shall" can be an ambiguously evil word--use "can", "may", "must", etc. to show definiteness. I follow the drafting line of thinking that we should write what we mean, not to sound or look "legal".
In legal parlance, shall is actually a highly specific term of art: It means must with the force of the law behind it. Shall means "must"--except when it doesn't. "Shall" is the most litigated word, and that is not an honor. Take Black's definitions: - Has a duty to; is required to
- Should
- May
- Will
- Is entitled to
If you mean "must", write "must". The legalese would no doubt get modified by the submitting State Rep, or Legislative Services, anyway. One thing to remember about wording is that the more specific you try to make it, the more holes you open up—whatever you didn’t specify. The law is verbose, but constitutions are written in broad and general language. What you have here is starting to look more like statute than Constitutional article.
The law does not need to be verbose, and Constitutions do not need to be written in broad and general language (compare First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Const.; two differrent styles. There are no rules to follow. Both should say what they mean to say--no more; no less. If there is a loophole you want to get rid of, point it out and offer some text to "plug" it. Yeah, the Fourteenth Amendment is the last thing I’d want to make a new article look like. The point I was trying to make is you’d never be able to find all the loopholes, and highly specific language just helps the opposition say that whatever you didn’t mention must be permissible, because it’s not mentioned. This phenomena is actually a major flaw in the entire concept of the federal Bill of Rights: If you enumerate certain rights, the government gets the idea that the ones not enumerated must not exist. I honestly like the idea of going back to something simple like you originally had:— “ [Art.] 18-b. [Life, Liberty, and Property Protected.] The State and its subdivisions shall have no standing to commence or maintain any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding against any person unless his acts have, in fact, deprived another person of his life, liberty, or property, by fraud or force.” One thing I also like about the New Hampshire Constitution is the philosophical explanations they include in most articles, for example, “Where the same undistinguishing severity is exerted against all offenses, the people are led to forget the real distinction in the crimes themselves, and to commit the most flagrant with as little compunction as they do the lightest offenses,” in Article 18 and “Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive, and unjust,” in Article 23. I wonder if something similar should be included here. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
I honestly like the idea of going back to something simple like you originally had:—
“[Art.] 18-b. [Life, Liberty, and Property Protected.] The State and its subdivisions shall have no standing to commence or maintain any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding against any person unless his acts have, in fact, deprived another person of his life, liberty, or property, by fraud or force.”
I frequently go back and cut out all the junk. But then, I notice problems. For example, the above does not prevent rights to property from being adjudicated in your absence. Civil forfeiture is dishonest, abusive, and its sole purpose is to circumvent a person's normal due process protections. I suppose the title of this thread "Victimless Crimes Amendment" is too narrow (I don't see that I have privs to edit it), because it encompasses far more than just victimless crimes. Under the language above, you could not be hauled into court for not paying your state taxes. Or a traffic ticket. 'Course that was the point--government proceedings are too easily instituted for legal (but unjust) reasons and can be greatly abused. The goal is to limit the circumstances in which you must appear in front of a government official to protect either yourself or your property. Preamble: I'd been working on something preamble-like. Just haven't posted it yet. Been faaar too busy with work :/ The point I was trying to make is you’d never be able to find all the loopholes, and highly specific language just helps the opposition say that whatever you didn’t mention must be permissible, because it’s not mentioned. This phenomena is actually a major flaw in the entire concept of the federal Bill of Rights: If you enumerate certain rights, the government gets the idea that the ones not enumerated must not exist.
The bigger problem isn't the BoR--it's that the U.S. Constitution was written poorly (blahblahblah, argue if you want... IMHO). If the government was truly supposed to be one of enumerated powers, those powers would not have included such ridiculously broad items like the "Necessary and Proper" or "General Welfare" clauses. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
