[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Cop in Police Cruiser Runs Over 50yo Woman Carrying Groceries, Then Drives Off

Trump's Bump Stock Ban Shows Once Again He Is Happy to Ignore Inconvenient Laws

New Jersey wealth spread - Brinks truck

Mueller appears victorious in mystery subpoena dispute

No Charges for Father Who Shot a Cop 6 Times After it Was Found to Be Self-Defense

Comey: The FBI’s Garbage Reputation Is Everybody’s Fault But Mine

Clip #6893 EGYPTIAN TV DEBATE ABOUT WIFE BEATING: IT IS THE HUSBAND'S "QURANIC RIGHT" TO BEAT HIS WIFE; THE PURPOSE IS TO HUMILIATE HER

Former Kremlin Advisor Karaganov: 'We Are In An Acute Prewar Situation'

Russian Expert Korotchenko: Our Military Will Not Let The Americans Perceive The Black Sea As A Region, Where They May Act As They Please

Mueller’s mother’s first cousin was the Architect of the JFK Assassination.

HOW TO WATCH PETER JACKSON’S ‘THEY SHALL NOT GROW OLD’ BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE

A Vice President With Few Virtues

Politics doesn't improve your life

The cost of bad policing: Review of Iberia Parish cases leads to 18 tossed convictions

A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job

NRA Exposed: Their Deadly Support for Red Flag Gun Confiscation Laws!

What should happen to faggot pedophiles?

Christopher Steele: I Was Hired to Help Hillary Clinton Challenge the 2016 Election Results

VATICAN REFUSES TO OFFER ASYLUM TO ASIA BIBI

Russians sought to recruit 'assets' through social media, Senate told

Dozens of al-Shabab Extremists Killed in Somalia Airstrikes, U.S. Military Says

Investigations now entangle Donald Trump’s White House, campaign, transition, inauguration, charity and business. For Trump, the political, the personal and the deeply personal are all under examination.

The boogeyman is coming for you… no matter where in the world you are

SICKO Palestinian culture: Clip #6876 PA TV HOST DANA ABU SHAMSIYA PRAISES PALESTINIAN WHO STABBED ISRAELI POLICEMEN: HE HARVESTS SOULS ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND IS DESIRED BY THE VIRGINS OF PARADISE

EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT AL-SISI: PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRIES SHOULD NOT EXPECT THE WEST TO WELCOME THEM; THEY SHOULD SOLVE THEIR OWN COUNTRIES' PROBLEMS INSTEAD

Genocidal racist Arab leader: Ahmad Shukairy, ‘father’ of ‘Apartheid’ slander

Gamal Abdel Nasser interviewed in English.

Underground Bishops Expected to Subject Themselves to Communist Ones Favored by Pope as Sign of Obedience

Why did Jeb Bush get Scared after He Saw The Note from Secret Service?

Kansas Supreme Court Says Cops Can Search A House Without A Warrant As Long As They Claim They Smelled Marijuana

The Twilight of Asset Forfeiture? (Copsuckers weep)

Investigations look at Trump’s life from all angles

VICE

French Government Threatens Town With A Fine Of 2000 Euros A Day If It Does Not Remove Nativity Set

Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act.

Faithful Flock to Pay Tribute to Effigy of Virgin Mary That Appeared Near Artesia Church ...

Federal judge in Texas strikes Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act Affordable Care Act

Feds Fine Business $60,000 for Selling Non-Prescription Contact Lenses Without a Prescription

Policing For Profit: How Civil Asset Forfeiture Has Perverted American Law Enforcement

BREAKING: Trump Names Mick Mulvaney Acting Chief of Staff

Sondra Locke, frequent co-star in Clint Eastwood films, dead at 74

Vox: Change the Constitution so Ocasio-Cortez Can Run for President!

Scott Adams: How Google is Ruining my Life for Political Reason

Congress Hid Illegal Legislation in Farm Bill to Further Support Horrific Genocide in Yemen and It Passed

Boy Scouts On Verge Of Bankruptcy

If Cannabis Can Kill "Incurable" Brain Cancer, Why Is It Criminalized?

Karma’s a B---h

Teenage Sisters Legally Recorded Police, Who Tackled Them to the Ground

Bizarre Clouds of Aluminum-Coated Material Appear on Radar Across the US

Trump Inauguration Spending Under Criminal Investigation by Federal Prosecutors


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: Why Does the Law Not Warn?
Source: Free-Man's Perspective
URL Source: https://www.freemansperspective.com/law-not-warn/
Published: Jul 10, 2018
Author: Paul Rosenberg
Post Date: 2018-07-12 10:59:00 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 199
Comments: 8

Alternate text if image doesn't load

Everyone who has children, or even nieces and nephews, understands that you have to warn a child before punishing him or her. If not, you teach the child a rash of bad lessons, like these:

  • Punishment can rain down upon you at any time, with no warning.

  • The world can’t be predicted.

  • There are two kinds of people: those who order and punish and those who obey or suffer.

  • The line between what is punished and what is not is unknown.

  • Trying new things brings you shame and pain.

I doubt that any of my readers would consider these as healthy attitudes for a child to assume. And that’s why we warn before we punish. We want them to understand that there are rational reasons for punishment, and we don’t want them cowering in perpetual fear.

Warning, then, is an essential tool, and yet it plays almost no role in modern law. Which begs the question: Why not?

What Is the Purpose of Law?

The purpose of law is to facilitate beneficial interaction and to minimize conflict. This concept, however worded, is what the founders of civilizations nearly always come back to. The US Constitution, for example, notes that it was written to “promote the general welfare.”

So, if warnings help beneficial interaction, why should they be pushed out of law? Consider:

  • Is it more beneficial to warn the truck driver that he’s violating some regulation or to enforce the law, impounding his truck for a week in the process? What are the economies of these two scenarios? Which facilitates benefit?

  • Is it better to warn the kid with five vape kits and a small bag of hashish or to send him to jail and perhaps condemn him to a decade in prison? Is derailing his promising life a factor to be considered at all? Or must we shut down our minds in the face of “it’s the law”?

  • Would it be better to warn a small business that they’re late on a tax deposit, or should they be ruined instead? Which makes life better for more people?

It’s obvious in all of these cases – and we could add many more – that warning is far better at accomplishing what law is supposed to accomplish than slamming people with laws that are held above question.

Why, then, does the law not warn?

What Has Happened

The use of warnings has historically been common and often mandatory. Even the Romans (no bleeding hearts, they) nearly always warned before they struck. As historian Paul Johnson wrote,

Roman law tended to sleep unless infractions were brought to its attention by the external signs of disorder… Then it warned, and if its warnings were unheeded, acted with ferocity…

Even into my lifetime, beat cops used to warn people who were passing into criminality. (Hopefully at least a few still do.)

What has happened is that law has been subverted through a long, slow process. At any given point in the process, it was easy to see it as simple adaptation and often as improving the system. The net result, however, has been the degrading of law.

Justice, in more or less the whole of the Western tradition, was held above the ruler. But once the rulers could create endless streams of new laws – thereby imposing outcomes upon judges and juries – law was submerged below rulership[1]Please see FMP #27, where I explained this in detail.

Previously (as under the common law), judges sought justice, and the legislated edicts of politicians were all but absent.

Here are two specific changes that ejected warning from the practice of law:

  • The loss of nullification. Nullification by juries was the final check on the excesses of legal systems. During the American Revolution, for example, several famous cases of nullification – juries flatly defying judges – were crucial to the survival of dissent, and because of that, it was clearly acknowledged by the new US justice system. Over the years, however, it has been beaten back to nearly complete exclusion. And when modern judges worry that nullification might rear its head, they apply threats. (As during the Ross Ulbricht trial.) As a result, juries feel powerless compared to a judge, whereas the opposite is generally the healthier situation.

  • A belief in the adversarial process as a guarantor of justice. Making sure that everyone gets to tell their story is central to justice; a belief that might makes right is something far different. In far too many cases – and nearly always in prominent cases – the process of obtaining justice has become a battle between intellectual gladiators, with government prosecutors (not coincidentally the best funded) winning a shocking percentage of the time. This is not a process that is open to the use of warnings.

These two examples, however, are merely part of a larger process, that of politics overtaking everything else in our civilization, including ethics. And when the ethical becomes the political, power overcomes justice.

Power, as has been noted before, seeks nothing so much as more power. Under that mindset, whatever limits or insults power is an enemy… it becomes the crime of lèse-majesté, of injuring the honor of the ruler.

It’s important to understand that lèse-majesté is not a physical thing like damaging persons or property. It is, rather, an emotional thing. With rulership unrestrained by a superior and separate ethics, lèse-majesté becomes anything that portrays power as something to be limited. And warnings do not feed power. Rather, they starve it.

What’s good for power is blind faith and blind obedience, and warnings oppose blindness of both forms. And if the law warned rather than striking first, there would be far less fear among the ruled, and that’s not good for power either.

In the End…

More could be added to this subject, but I think I’ve covered the essentials. In the end, the situation boils down to this:

Warnings clearly help accomplish the true goal of law: beneficial interaction. But they oppose the demand of power to be blindly honored. Therefore warnings have been pushed out of the practice of law.

Further, we can expect this situation to remain as long as politics reigns as sovereign over law and as an angry lord over society. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

There's no money in warning.

Hank Rearden  posted on  2018-07-12   11:12:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

Darwin warns.

Grandma warns.

But mostly...GOD WARNS.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-12   11:33:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0)

I doubt that any of my readers would consider these as healthy attitudes for a child to assume. And that’s why we warn before we punish. We want them to understand that there are rational reasons for punishment, and we don’t want them cowering in perpetual fear.

Warning, then, is an essential tool, and yet it plays almost no role in modern law. Which begs the question: Why not?

Because in modern law the unwarned defendant is not usually a child. There are different rules for children than adult law breakers.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-12   14:56:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: nolu chan (#3) (Edited)

There are different rules for children than adult law breakers.

As well there should.

However, criminal parental units are responsible for wherever their children belong as a result of violating the law to begin with. AND... whatever booby-trap or loophole these criminals have exploited in the process of sabotaging the USA.

The Courts are purposely avoiding addressing "unintended (aka INTENDED) consequences" for far too long now. Importing fatal diseases and national suicide by technicality was NEVER the intent of the Frames or Courts via the sloppy 14A.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-12   15:11:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu chan (#3)

Warning, then, is an essential tool, and yet it plays almost no role in modern law. Which begs the question: Why not?

Because it expresses circumstantial and awareness factors of guilt and liability. And when they are ignored, "extenuating circumstances" is used by a Legal Communitah that has become subverted to a great extent.

And no longer are caveats and "as is" warnings taken seriously either.

Since the mid-70s, our society has been indoctrinated to accepts the insane legal position of "NO FAULT"as well as being conditioned to accept that we're all "VICTIMS" by default, which are both patently unfair and untrue.

Same positions has been applied toward the Illegals' anchor children. The question that's just not addressed are: RESPONSIBILITY, LIABILITY and RESTITUTION.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-12   15:27:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Liberator (#4)

Importing fatal diseases and national suicide by technicality was NEVER the intent of the Frames or Courts via the sloppy 14A.

14A did not change the law of citizenship but removed it from congressional control. The intent of the framer of the citizenship clause is not hard to find. The stated intent was to include every person born in the United States who did not enjoy diplomatic immunity by belonging to the family of an accredited ambassador or foreign minister.

Senator Jacob Howard stated upon introducing his amendment to the House version of the 14th Amendment (adding the citizenship clause), "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

The Lynch v. Clark case is notable as it is from 1844 and clearly shows the court affirmation of citizenship for babies of aliens before the 14th Amendment existed. Granting citizenship to the children of aliens was not a new concept begun with the 14th Amendment. The Amendment placed the matter beyond the reach of the legislature to change, primarily with the then recently freed slaves in mind.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-12   15:34:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Deckard (#0)

Warnings clearly help accomplish the true goal of law: beneficial interaction.

No. Warnings help accomplish the author's definition of the goal of law.

In our system of justice, "warnings" are part of the sentence. A first-time offender for a minor violation of the law is often given a warning. The advantage of doing it that way is we now have a record of the fact that he was warned. Without that record, why, every offense is a first offense deserving of a warning.

misterwhite  posted on  2018-07-13   9:24:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Hank Rearden (#1)

There's no money in warning.

I think there is a lot of truth in that. So much of law enforcement these days is nothing more than revenue enhancement.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-07-13   9:54:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com