RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Old laws

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Michael wrote:

> The problem with what you say is that the state gets to decide when it
> follows it's own laws after-the-fact and when to apply those laws to
> others after-the-fact.

After what fact?  After the law has been broken?  It seems to me that the
important thing is the penalty for violating the law.  That is nearly
always determined after the fact and based on the details of the case
("extenuating circumstances," etc.).  I don't know what the law says must
be done when illegal tuition has been charged.  Maybe it says that
reimbursement is required.  If the law doesn't mandate reimbursement or
any particular punishment, I say they should just forget about their
mistake and move on.  No one will lose.  The students were getting a good
deal on their educations.  The harm will come from forcing the state to
reimburse former students who clearly don't deserve the money.  Huge sums
will come out of state coffers that are needed for welfare and road
repair.  It would be a disasterous mistake.


> If your law of working for $.50/hr did exist they could suddenly decide
> to charge us all with crimes and in some cases do just that or these old
> shitty laws. You can't randomly decide to enforce or not enforce laws or
> they don't really work at all.

The decision to enforce a law is not made at random.  But I agree with
your implication that laws that will not be enforced should probably be
changed.  We do then run into the problem I mentioned earlier:  It takes
more work to get rid of an old worthless law than it takes to ignore it
altogether (stop enforcing it).


> It is insane but randomly ignoring things won't help the problem any.
> There is a long history of such laws showing up many years later and
> being used to accomplish various nasty things. I seem to remember a few
> years ago a big trouble because lots places were using old laws against
> oral/anal sex to punish homosexuals or anyone they felt like targeting.
>
> Again this is why I think all non-constitutional laws should be on a
> time limit and have to be reenacted to keep them on the books.

That sounds like a reasonable idea, but I don't know enough about law to
take a definite stand on it.  They would have to make it easy to review
the laws.  Think of how much work it would be to review the merits of
every statute every 10 years!!

Mike
--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/