Why is it that while we have the UDHR which states any and all individuals have the right to free speech and the protection against hate, yet we have the KKK (bunch of haters) who can go out in public and defame people? Why've we got situations where I can go rob someone's bank and get shoved in jail for it but there's really nothing but "thou salt not steal" to stop me from doing so?

What's the point of making a law and having a consequence of breaking this law if there is no actual barrier to stop a crime being committed? Why do we have consequence without preventative action? What's the point?

Because there really is no way to stop everyone. And you can't prevent crime. Unless you had a trustworthy person watching over each "suspicious" person. And whose to say that even the trustworthy dont screw off at times?

That's the thing. The corruption of law has made the trustworthy untrustworthy. You can't have one blockage of action without another. That being said there would be no need for consequence if we could prevent the action that said consequence would follow, but I'm not trying to say that there is a definite way to prevent crime. The most effective crime prevention is a bunch of police officers with a time machine, but that's not realistic.

My question is, why've we got all this hypocrisy in law? Why can civilians give somebody the finger and be sued for defamation but we can witness a whole racist organisation break the many articles of the UDHR by their actions and comments? It's silly. We've got complainants raising the issue of action without consequence, when there is indeed consequence but it isn't enough to stop people breaking laws and conditions.

The only way i could think of stopping people breaking laws is to invent a system that changes people into nice, obedient people. However, that might not work and they would break laws. Basically, it's impossible to stop people physically from breaking laws.

Exactly. That is exactly my point. It's really dumb to believe you can make laws to change somebody's clockwork. Just cause it may one day be illegal to suffer from psychosis doesn't mean psychosis will stop existing. It's still a congnitively driven condition.

We're not talking about forcing people to behave in accordance with the law though; the whole discussion point here is that it's silly that we've got such hypocrisy in this system. People are reprimanded heavily for crimes commited, but nothing is actually in their way of committing these crimes, so what's the point of having laws if people are doing nothing more than saying "hey you can't do that" to enforce them?

IDK, Maybe guards everywhere?

Bart, where are you going with this? You're completely not stating anything even remotely relevant to this conversation. Please read my posts before you comment, or don't speak.

Look, firstly, i did read your posts.
secondly, you can't actually stop people from doing what they do, however, laws are there so the consequences might teach them a lesson. While it might not work, at least if they are locked it prison, they can't do it again until there out.

But what's to stop them from doing something once their prison sentences end? They can just walk into another bank and rob it again.

I feel like this is more like a rant rather than a debate, as there's really no solution.

And who said there even going to go to prison once they do? Who says they wont break out?

Agreed with Aloe.

How the fuck would i know Aloe?
I agree with Cyclone.

Well, knowing the consequences of one's actions is a big factor. I'd bet money on that thousands of crimes don't happen because the people who are considering them do not want to spend time in jail or even be tried in court.

JesterDon IVVVI wrote:

Well, knowing the consequences of one's actions is a big factor. I'd bet money on that thousands of crimes don't happen because the people who are considering them do not want to spend time in jail or even be tried in court.

You might be right. But I know people that "Don't give a fuck" about jail.

i think that our legal system is fine, but i would prefer more of a democratic over this unfair republic

Just look at the most jacked up place in the world.
My school.

The law is not to prevent law breaking, it is to punish law breaking.

But that doesn't always happen, now does it?

But the thing that keeps me from cussing out this one administrator at my school is the fact that if I do she'll probably get me expelled, but I'm moving to C.A. so I told her to fuck off on the way to the buses, she didn't even get to say anything to me.

Oh, sure who gives a fuck about laws since they don't work and can't stop crime. I live in the US, and in my opinion we have a pretty low crime rate, mainly because of our strict consequence stature. They way your putting it, laws don't work....Yes laws don't work for the people who break them, but think of the people who have that about doing a crime and changed their mind because they knew it was against the law. So no shit, laws help.

Aloe wrote:

But what's to stop them from doing something once their prison sentences end?

Nothing. Many criminals are repeat offenders. They do something bad, go to jail, get out, and go do something bad again, get thrown back in jail, and this process usually repeats itself until they get shot. Its really too bad...