This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

An Idea for a New Law

edited January 2011 in Everything Else
We've all seen stuff like this before.
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/24/flier-beats-tsa-vide.html
Some guy goes online and researches the law. He knows he is not required to show ID at the airport and he knows that he can film in any public space. Of course, the law enforcement officers on the scene do not know the law. Even though the guy gets acquitted in court, he owes a bunch of legal fees.

Of course, we see opposite situations as well. There was the guy who researched all the laws, and then used a remote controlled plane with an attached camera to take some great shots of NYC. When the police approached him, they acted appropriately.

I was thinking today, that there is an easy solution to all of these problems. We can make one federal law that applies to law enforcement agents no matter where they are. Here is what the law should do.

Basically if there is ever a situation where a non-violent civilian is engaged with a law enforcement officer, and there is a question about what is or is not legal, the law enforcement officer MUST make a call or use the Internet to verify the law and regulation. They must then read the regulation or law aloud to the civilian. Then both parties are free to change their minds before any action is taken. If the person realizes that yes, they are breaking the law, they can begin cooperating. If the officer realizes that no, this person isn't doing anything illegal, they can let them go. And, of course, if someone makes the wrong choice, on either side, they pay the price as usual. Be it being arrested for breaking the law, or getting busted for wrongful arrest.

In the age of the Internet, you should have to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers and go to court just because people can't understand the law. Not even lawyers know all the law. Civilians and cops are definitely not going to know all of it. With the technology we have now,the least we can do is look it up before we arrest people and make trouble for no reason.

If our government had any money, I would suggest one more thing. I would establish a nationwide free "is it legal" hotline accessible by phone and internet. Obviously this hotline will hurt lawyers, as they won't be able to charge people huge fees to answer simple legal questions anymore. However, they'll still make a bunch of money doing actual legal work. Also, the hotline should not give legal advice, as in "you should do X." It will only answer questions saying what is and is not legal, and what the penalties are.

Also, like 911, they should make recordings of all the calls public, for the sake of comedy.
«1

Comments

  • I can stand behind this law.
  • I am 100% for a law like this.
  • Also, the money saved from people getting the law right in the first place would probably make up for the cost of the hotline, if it were implemented efficiently.
  • Sounds like a good idea to me.
  • edited January 2011
    The only issue I see is that many things are way more complicated than a simple "is this legal," and might jump into legal advice territory pretty quickly. Also, some statutes might be pretty obscure, and thus the issue will not be resolved quickly.

    However, for sufficiently simple statutes, this could be a good idea.

    I'll wait for a lawyerly type to weigh in and tell us why we're all stupid.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • However, for sufficiently simple statutes, this could be a good idea.

    I'll wait for a lawyerly type to weigh in and tell us why we're all stupid.
    The vast majority of the time it's something like "taking pictures in the subway is legal." or "These are the regulations on whether your vehicle is street legal."

    My only worry is what happens if the hotline gets it wrong? If I call the hotline and they say that model rockets in the park are AOK, but then when the cop calls they say the opposite, OH SHIT. Can I sue the hotline? This I think is the most serious problem.
  • I think we all know that nothing like this will ever come to pass.
  • Heh, I wouldn't say it'll never happen, but it's definitely highly unlikely in the near future.
  • edited January 2011
    The vast majority of the time it's something like "taking pictures in the subway is legal." or "These are the regulations on whether your vehicle is street legal."
    I also see a lot of things that vary by municipality being problematic. Lots of cities and towns have little irritating statutes that are almost impossible to know before you violate them. Really, I'd like to see a hotline to the effect of "here's all the bullshit you need to know before you park in this town," or some such.

    EDIT: I'd also like to add: Fuck you, White Plains.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • I also see a lot of things that vary by municipality being problematic. Lots of cities and towns have little irritating statutes that are almost impossible to know before you violate them. Really, I'd like to see a hotline to the effect of "here's all the bullshit you need to know before you park in this town," or some such.
    Well, I would imagine that the hotline would operate much like 311 in NYC. If I call 311 and ask for help with the subway, they just forward me to the MTA. If I call the law hotline for my town's parking law, they will forward me to my local authority.
  • I also see a lot of things that vary by municipality being problematic. Lots of cities and towns have little irritating statutes that are almost impossible to know before you violate them. Really, I'd like to see a hotline to the effect of "here's all the bullshit you need to know before you park in this town," or some such.
    Well, I would imagine that the hotline would operate much like 311 in NYC. If I call 311 and ask for help with the subway, they just forward me to the MTA. If I call the law hotline for my town's parking law, they will forward me to my local authority.
    Unfortunately, that complicates the whole issue of responsibility you mentioned before.
  • I also see a lot of things that vary by municipality being problematic. Lots of cities and towns have little irritating statutes that are almost impossible to know before you violate them. Really, I'd like to see a hotline to the effect of "here's all the bullshit you need to know before you park in this town," or some such.
    Well, I would imagine that the hotline would operate much like 311 in NYC. If I call 311 and ask for help with the subway, they just forward me to the MTA. If I call the law hotline for my town's parking law, they will forward me to my local authority.
    Unfortunately, that complicates the whole issue of responsibility you mentioned before.
    Yep.
  • Maybe if it just had common laws, and the hotline/service had to state that it could not provide assistance beyond them.
  • Maybe if it just had common laws, and the hotline/service had to state that it could not provide assistance beyond them.
    Then it's already kinda useless. The two hallmark examples we are going by are the TSA checkpoint and the photos in the subway. If they can't forward you to a TSA or NYC specialist, then it's not all that useful.
  • This would work if every place had all of the same laws and all of those laws were codified. The problem is that, as mentioned above, there are varying levels of laws that apply in one place as well as different laws that apply in different places. Also, not all law is codified in statute or regulation. Some of it is determined by the way courts interpret the language of codes, and some of it is common law that isn't actually codified. There's a reason legal help is so expensive - it takes a lot of research. It's not enough to just Google the US or State code and read a statute.
  • Words.
    This is why I'm generally for a massive, multi-decade re-codification and digitization project for the entire body of US law and precedent. It would probably cost billions of dollars and millions of man-hours just to make a dent, but nonetheless I advocate trying.
  • edited January 2011
    This is why I'm generally for a massive, multi-decade re-codification and digitization project for the entire body of US law and precedent. It would probably cost billions of dollars and millions of man-hours just to make a dent, but nonetheless I advocate trying.
    I think, though, that laws and statutes change so frequently that it'd be hard to keep up with it. I suppose you could have dedicated law scribes - wretched souls toiling away in windowless basements for their entire lives - but I have a feeling that few people would take those jobs.

    It's the sort of task that's menial enough to drive away the people smart enough to actually do the job correctly.

    EDIT: What we should do is just have one dude that's really smart, and that guy knows all the laws. If there's a dispute, you go to him and he recites all the laws until you hear the one that applies. By the time you get there, you've probably stopped caring about whatever minor infraction brought you there and you go off drinking. Everybody wins!
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • I think, though, that laws and statutes change so frequently that it'd be hard to keep up with it.
    I really don't think laws change very often.
  • RymRym
    edited January 2011
    I think, though, that laws and statutes change so frequently that it'd be hard to keep up with it.
    Not if governments used even the most trivial of change control systems.
    It's the sort of task that's menial enough to drive away the people smart enough to actually do the job correctly.
    We do this in the financial world with little trouble. Every law and regulation that gets passed is codified into real, working systems and deployed worldwide with minimal fuss and exquisite recordkeeping. I can look at code to see what the current and coming short-sale laws are. This includes foreign regulations, rules, and laws as well.

    Even for non-codified or soft changes, real change control/management systems effectively make the subjective reasonably objective for purposes of figuring out whether or not you're violating a policy.

    TL;DR: This is a solved problem lacking only implementation. (Though I agree that implementation would be onerous at best).
    Post edited by Rym on
  • edited January 2011
    I really don't think laws change very often.
    They do in a lot of municipalities. Perhaps state laws and federal laws don't change that rapidly, but local governments are generally pretty active.
    Every law and regulation that gets passed is codified into real, working systems and deployed worldwide with minimal fuss and exquisite recordkeeping.
    Sure, you could design a system that works great going forward. It's entering the historical information that presents the largest challenge.

    I'm also not sure how readily we could codify case law in a way that would make it readily accessible. I defer to the legal scholars on that one.

    EDIT: Yes, onerous is a good way to sum up the implementation of this sort of thing. Maybe we should just leave old laws where they are, codify every new statute going forward, and when a new statute changes or amends an old non-codified statute, you codify it then and there.

    Basically, say "fuck it" to the backlog until we need to care.

    Of course, I've also done that sort of thing in the lab - implementing a new records control scheme while keeping the old one intact - and brother, "onerous" doesn't begin to describe it.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • edited January 2011
    Last week, the city council clerk handed me a 300-page supplement to the municipal ordinance code. It's the replacement pages for local laws that have changed this year.

    Several hundred Ohio laws are enacted/modified/repealed/dead-wooded every year.

    My tax accountant has a tome of several thousand pages each year for changes to the tax code.

    Those don't even take into account things like circuit court rulings, supreme court rulings, and attorney general opinions that change laws without the content of the laws actually changing.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • This would work if every place had all of the same laws and all of those laws were codified. The problem is that, as mentioned above, there are varying levels of laws that apply in one place as well as different laws that apply in different places. Also, not all law is codified in statute or regulation. Some of it is determined by the way courts interpret the language of codes, and some of it is common law that isn't actually codified. There's a reason legal help is so expensive - it takes a lot of research. It's not enough to just Google the US or State code and read a statute.
    I think this is a more fundamental problem that also needs solving.

    Obviously, ignorance is no excuse. Even if I am legitimately ignorant of the fact that stealing is outlawed, that does not grant me a license to steal whatever I want.

    However, what happens when you have a law so complicated that an average person can not figure out what the law says?

    I already know about a case some years ago in Texas relating to trade secrets and the law. I know it because it was very relevant to technology. Basically the building code included proprietary specifications that were trade secrets of a particular company. Their plan was to have a racket where you had to pay them in order to comply with building code. They lost on the obvious basis that the law can not be secret.

    Well, what if a law is not secret, but is so complicated that only a genius can comprehend it? There could easily be laws that involve extremely difficult mathematics which are solvable only by very good mathematicians. Is it reasonable or fair to expect an average person to be able to obey that law?

    Here's how I see it. The government provides a high school education for free. They do not pay for any education above that. Also, people under the age of 18 don't even count as people, though I think they should be. Therefore, every law must be able to be understood by a high school graduate level of knowledge. If a law is unable to be understood with a high school graduate level of eduation, then it needs to be rewritten or invalidated because it's unreasonable to expect people to obey a law they can't understand even if they attempt to remove their ignorance.
  • I'm also not sure how readily we could codify case law. I defer to the legal scholars on that one.
    It's not as big of a problem as it sounds to be to get started. The financials did it for ALL existing regulation relatively recently as the market digitized.

    First, you write a functional and/or markup language which is designed to describe laws in an inheritable, modular manner. Think L(aw)ML instead of XML.

    Next, you ensure there is a tagging/linking mechanism for associating non-legislated precedent with existing law. Sort of a "this modifies/nullifies that" framework.

    Third, you begin creating all new legislation and precedent in two formats: the existing model and the new model.

    Fourth, designate certain narrow branches of law that are commonly used for "conversion" over time.

    Fifth, you extend a framework of inheritance outward, along with a mechanism for local overrides based on particular factors (e.g., jurisdiction).


    The key is maintaining two parallel frameworks for a while. It would be trivial to have a converter to create human-language-readable versions of LML laws, but not the reverse. Thus, actual judges and lawyers would have the tools available for new laws, but would not have to alter their understanding of law or legal language at any particular juncture.

    I'm obviously greatly oversimplifying. My point is just that the task is not nearly so impossible as one would think. It would, however, require a multi-decade commitment.
  • edited January 2011
    However, what happens when you have a law so complicated that an average person can not figure out what the law says?
    How about free legal consultation? Government employees whose sole responsibility it is to answer legal questions and clarify things for the average citizen?

    That's a stop-gap measure, but I think it could work until we get the entire populace sufficiently educated to be able to read a law properly.
    It would, however, require a multi-decade commitment.
    See, I'm pretty sure that's the part that will make this effectively impossible. You'd need to keep a clear and consistent government agenda that spans multiple different administrations, all of whom will have different agendas.

    If we could keep differing governments consistently dedicated to a single project over a course of decades, I'm pretty sure we'd be a lot better off. Think what would happen if absolutely every governmental administration in the next 20 years said, "OK, we're going to develop renewable energy for reals," and then actually stuck to the plan, irrespective of individual agendas. If you can figure out how to get that to happen, run for office.

    I would much rather see mandatory legal classes in high school, ones that teach you how to read and interpret laws. In fact, that'd be a great course for general critical thinking education, as you force students to interpret logical documents and apply them to real-world scenarios.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • RymRym
    edited January 2011
    Also, much of this could be solved without sweeping change with one single fucking program: any of CVS, Subversion, or Git would revolutionize our government overnight.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • How about free legal consultation? Government employees whose sole responsibility it is to answer legal questions and clarify things for the average citizen?
    If they are qualified to do that, then they can make far more money as a lawyer.
  • If they are qualified to do that, then they can make far more money as a lawyer.
    Well, there are people with law degrees who do take public law jobs. Actually, there's a nice law school debt-forgiveness program out there right now for people who take lower-paying government service legal jobs.

    You'd have to do a lot to make the job attractive, but I bet you could fill it.
  • If they are qualified to do that, then they can make far more money as a lawyer.
    Ding ding ding!

    You really hit the nail on the head. I posit that the only reasons the financial sector has implemented this sort of thing boil down to:

    1. Smart technological people work in the financial sector.
    2. People in the financial sector are paid ludicrous amounts of money.
    3. The financial sector makes ludicrous amounts of money.

    Note that 3 allows 2, which allows 1...
  • This would work if every place had all of the same laws and all of those laws were codified. The problem is that, as mentioned above, there are varying levels of laws that apply in one place as well as different laws that apply in different places. Also, not all law is codified in statute or regulation. Some of it is determined by the way courts interpret the language of codes, and some of it is common law that isn't actually codified. There's a reason legal help is so expensive - it takes a lot of research. It's not enough to just Google the US or State code and read a statute.
    This is all so, and this proposed site would have to have Shepardizing capability. I can't tell you how many times I would get a call from the jail from a defendant finding an old case that said that a wife can't testify against a husband or that possession of a certain amount of marijuana wasn't prohibited by statute. Those things might have been the law at one time, but they've since been modified/repealed/abolished. There's an updating service called Shepard's that can be used to figure this type of thing out, but they never tell people using the jail law library how to use it. There's lots and lots of stuff gratuitously reported on the internet like this that doesn't apply to real life any longer.

    Also, the exact same laws can be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions - especially in plea negotiations. Possession of marijuana is the best example I know of this. In Louisville, KY, where I used to practice, a first offense could be dismissed if the defendant went to a brief counseling session. Other offenses would get the defendant a $25.00 fine and costs. In Owensboro, KY, about two hours away, it would be $250.00 fine and costs. In Shepherdsville, KY, just a half hour away, it would be 3 days in jail, minimum. In Brandenburg, KY, about 45 minutes away, it would be 7 days in jail, minimum - all for the same amount of marijuana. So, even within a single state, results vary greatly for this offense.

    It's not just statutory law, either. In your example with the guy taking photos in an airport, there might not be a state statute against such action, but there very well might be federal statutes against it, and not necessarily the statutes you'd think to look for. Further, such action might be illegal due to some sort of regulation promulgated by the DOT or the TSA or some such, and those regs might not specifically make the action illegal. They might make it possible for an administrative law judge to exercise contempt-like powers to fine or detain the plaintiff, and the type of search you're postulating wouldn't have turned anything up at all.
  • The money problem is a big problem, and getting bigger. We've got huge unemployment issues. Well, we can create all sorts of ways for people to enter public service, like teaching or giving free legal advice. Great, but those jobs pay shit, and are full of bureaucracy and pain. Also, anyone who is well qualified is going to make a ton more money in the private sector. All the unemployed people are low skill laborers. We have a labor shortage at the top where the smart people just keep moving back and forth between companies getting higher and higher salaries as demand is too high and supply is too low. At the bottom demand is low, and people have no jobs and wages are dropping. The education system is too shitty to move those people upwards. And we won't even let enough people move here to do the high demand jobs, so instead we pay them to do it in their own country.

    And it's yet another big mess that means we can't have nice things.

    My main point is that we definitely need to have cops check the law if you ask, because shit is getting out of hand. There are stories like this all too often lately.
Sign In or Register to comment.