2007-05-23 04:12:22 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Actually it's the opposite. The looser the laws the less crime, to the extreme case if you had no laws there would be no laws to break and thereby no crime.
Now, I know what you really mean in terms of unethical actions- things that we would consider crimes no matter what the law is. I don't know if that is the case. Maybe to a point, but at some stage, if your laws become very strict then, the enforcement of those laws can become unethical and you start getting more institutional crimes inherent in fascism.
2007-05-23 04:20:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
There is no absolute answer to this. There are many different crimes and many different laws associated with them.
Law enforcement requires discretion. You would not have the same law for a 5 year old that walks out of a store with a toy as you would for a 25 year old that walks out of a store with a toy because they could not afford a toy for their child and they were too proud to go to charity (I actually knew a woman who went to jail for credit card fraud because she stole a card to buy Christmas presents for her children. She spent 6 months in jail and her children were put in protective services. Talk about short term solutions!)
Hard crimes used to be easier to enforce: murder, robbery, rape, etc. (Almost) everyone agrees that they are wrong.
Morality laws are tougher to enforce; not everyone agrees with them. Certain "vices" are legal in certain states to encourage population migrations to other locals. It does not always work but that was the idea (gambling, prostitution, alcohol, firearms, taxes, etc, in certain states).
Unfortunately more and more people are crying "Unfair!" and "Not my morals". Hard laws get softened, and vice laws get stricter as the law strives for equality where it does not belong.
2007-05-23 12:10:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
Look at the Pharisees, for example, They insisted upon the strictest possible interpretation of alaw, with the result that virtually everyone became a law breaker. The strictness of the law is not nearly so important as the actual content.
Likewise, the existence (or not) of laws is but one factor that fosters or discourages crime. Another is respect for the law. Still another (and frankly, vital) is poverty and opportunity. Yet another is the size and efficiency of the police.
2007-05-23 11:19:20 · answer #3 · answered by zahir13 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we need stricter laws, i think we need harsher punishment. If your caught going 30 mph over the speed limit, you don't need just a fine, you need something bigger that will affect you for a while because obviously you were doing it on purpose. If you kill someone on two different occasions you don't need life in prison you need your life to be hell for the rest of your life. Look at Paris Hilton, she's getting 45 days in jail for being stupid, why not give her something to remember instead of pampering her. I think 45 days in jail is pampering her. She's a big girl, she doesn't need to be protected she needs to get a brain.
2007-05-23 11:26:29 · answer #4 · answered by Krista 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One example can give you the answer to this.
Prohibition. This was an extremely strict law. Possible the strictest. It was broken left and right from a little speak easy or grandma with a still in her barn. The only thing that this strict law created was organized crime in America. Al Capone couldn't be happier.
2007-05-23 11:16:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
If the laws we have on the books are enforced, less crime. The big problem, and I am in the middle of law enforcement, is we have judges who, for many crimes, slap on the wrist instead of jail time. We have all kinds of gun laws on the books and don't need more, just enforce what we do have.
Its illegal for a felon to own a firearm, but 90% of the felons arrested, had a weapon in their possession.
To me if a person commits a crime, and found guilty, give them the time to think about it, and if they used a weapon, tack 10 years on the sentence and it runs consecutive to the first sentence.
may require more prisons being built, but it would send the message, " we are serious about fighting crime."
2007-05-23 11:18:22 · answer #6 · answered by George C 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. The stricter the laws, the fuller the jail/prison.
2007-05-23 11:15:03 · answer #7 · answered by sweetie_baby 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. The strict laws on drugs have caused prison overcrowding and an increased demand .
Legalize drugs. Take the government out of the equation and let the chips fall where they may.
I'd rather save prisons for pedophiles and wife-beaters.
2007-05-23 11:28:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, most emphatically. More laws equal more outlaws. As more things become illegal--not wearing your seat belt, serving trans-fats, smoking in your car--it becomes easier to slip up and do something "wrong". This leads to people who haven't hurt anyone being treated like people who have, and locked in with people who have, and getting hurt by and/or learning from people who have. It leads to resentment. And just try putting your life back together afterwards...!
I just read this article on zero-tolerance in schools. Kids have been jailed and sent to "alternative" schools for saying things like, "You better not have eaten all the potatoes!" It doesn't work any better for adults.
2007-05-23 11:23:54 · answer #9 · answered by GreenEyedLilo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Stricter laws will led to inhumanity by Authorities. Only way is to find the ways to solve the problems that led to crimes
2007-05-23 11:17:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋