jimnyc
08-27-2012, 05:17 PM
We've had a lot of discussions recently about laws in various countries, upholding these laws, asylum and other related topics. We can take the discussion in various directions of course, but I wanted to ask a question or questions for starters...
If there is a law on the books, and penalties are included, and no one is currently addressing our government and/or the courts to have these laws changed - should the laws be enforced when someone breaks them, however absurd they may seem to some? Do we and should we allow the courts to address those issues until such time laws are officially repealed, if repealed at all?
And for example, let's assume someone faces charges and fights them in court. They lose their court case. Is it reasonable for someone to appeal a case in which the underlying law is considered to be absurd? Do we encourage people to run from the rule of law, whether in hiding in their own country or fleeing to another? I'm not necessarily speaking of someone charged with an antiquated law, or not charged at all, but rather charged and already found guilty.
Of course it's difficult to give general answers to these questions. I'm confident it would be much easier for many to answer if speaking of specific cases. But that's the kicker to my line of questioning - should laws be upheld differently in different cases?
I'm of the belief that no one is above the law. If a written and standing law is broken, that person should be charged, no matter who they are. I think it's up to the judicial system to handle the matter from there. I'll add in more as I see how others feel...
If there is a law on the books, and penalties are included, and no one is currently addressing our government and/or the courts to have these laws changed - should the laws be enforced when someone breaks them, however absurd they may seem to some? Do we and should we allow the courts to address those issues until such time laws are officially repealed, if repealed at all?
And for example, let's assume someone faces charges and fights them in court. They lose their court case. Is it reasonable for someone to appeal a case in which the underlying law is considered to be absurd? Do we encourage people to run from the rule of law, whether in hiding in their own country or fleeing to another? I'm not necessarily speaking of someone charged with an antiquated law, or not charged at all, but rather charged and already found guilty.
Of course it's difficult to give general answers to these questions. I'm confident it would be much easier for many to answer if speaking of specific cases. But that's the kicker to my line of questioning - should laws be upheld differently in different cases?
I'm of the belief that no one is above the law. If a written and standing law is broken, that person should be charged, no matter who they are. I think it's up to the judicial system to handle the matter from there. I'll add in more as I see how others feel...