Silly, Stupid and Insane Laws

HOME page> NEW STUFF page>
WRITING CONTENT page> GUEST ARTISTS page>

Silly, Stupid and Insane Laws
Mick Stratton
mstratton@hlkn.tamu.edu

If we were all saints, always doing what is right, there would be no need for laws.

What makes a law silly? There are some reasons that I don't believe anyone can argue with that make a law silly. Then there are reasons that are debatable depending on our religious beliefs and/or our life philosophy. I will begin with the reasons that I think everyone can agree upon.

Unenforceable Laws:
These are laws that are almost impossible to catch someone breaking. An example of this would be laws against thoughts. Since there is no way that others can know really what an individual believes or thinks, these types of laws are not enforceable and therefore silly. I don't believe, in this country, there has ever been such a law but in other countries there has been. Laws against certain religious beliefs come to mind. After all, all beliefs are based on thoughts. But if we don't tell people what we truly think, they will never know.

We do have laws that include thoughts or emotions as part of the law. These are called hate crime laws. While people have different views on this, I considered these laws silly. If someone murders or seriously injures someone I love, I could care less how he feels or thinks. I just want him to pay the price for the crime. It is nearly impossible to tell what is in the heart of a murderer and if it is shown that it was premeditated, the maximum penalty is already capital punishment. So what difference would the law that includes how he feels make a difference?

Also, how can anyone but the individual know how he/she felt (hate or not hate) during the crime? A person might be a racist and kill someone of that specific race, but does so for a different reason other than his racism. Isn't it really impossible to know for sure what was really in his heart?

Another example is that at one time in Texas there was a law against sodomy (unnatural sex acts) between married couples. If a married couple, in the privacy of their own home, performed oral sex (legally classified as sodomy) it was against the law. This was virtually undetectable so therefore was virtually impossible to enforce. It was eventually removed from the books. Similarly, laws concerning sexual relationships against unmarried adults, same sex or not, were also removed.

Unpopular Morality Laws:
Another way to say this is: Laws that will not be obeyed. These are laws that the majority of the population do not believe should exist. There are many examples of this. One example is drinking alcohol. At one time there was a constitutional amendment (Amendment 18) against drinking alcohol. Eventually the majority of the people thought this was a bad law and ignored it. The end result was that there was a law that could punish some for what most were doing based on any reason the State wanted to use. After a while it seemed that the only thing the law did was increase violent crime and fill the jails with otherwise law abiding citizens, so it was repealed (Amendment 21).

There are many examples of unpopular morality (behavior) laws that have been repealed over time, but I believe you get the idea.

Nonresponsive Laws:
These are laws that don't affect the behavior the laws were meant to stop. An example of this is that up until 2013 the state of Texas had a law against ordinary people being able to carry switchblades. I assume the reasoning was that without switchblades people would stop stabbing each other. I don't believe it did. When I was a teenager growing up in San Antonio, switchblades were illegal yet there seemed to be at least one knifing a night. Meanwhile law abiding citizens did not have a locked blade knife that they could open and close with one hand while working with the other hand. That was until the spring assisted knife came along. The difference between these two knives? In one case the activation device is on the handle (switchblade) and on the other it is on the blade (spring assisted). It took a number of years, but the State finally decided the difference was of no consequence and the law was not making any difference in violent crime, so it was repealed.

Laws with the Negative Unintended Consequences:
Sometimes a law can cause more harm than good. There was a study done in 2005 that came to the conclusion that airbags might be injuring and maybe killing people more that it was protecting them:
“In fact, said UGA statistics professor Mary C. Meyer, a new analysis of existing data indicates that, controlling for other factors, airbags are actually associated with slightly increased probability of death in accidents.” Read more at: http://phys.org/news4363.html#jCp”

I don't know the answer to the question if airbags do more harm than good and I suspect that technology is improving the situation. However, each law we now have, and those bills being considered for more, should be looked at with this in mind. If, in fact, airbags cause more harm than good the law should be repealed.

Another example is required immunization. Many parents do not want their children immunized because they believe that shots can cause problems, even death. Most say the risk is worth it because of the greater good. It is not that there is a law that says our children have to be immunized, it is a school requirement. Since, in Texas, school attendance is required by law and many cannot afford other options (private school or home schooling) they are de facto, required to comply. When we think about it, this is silly because if we as parents have our children immunized and another child is not, our children should be fine, right?

Unfortunately in some cases shots given for immunization actually do serious harm and may even cause death. This is rare, but it does happen. By the way, my children have always been up to date on their shots because we thought that was the smarter way to go.

The point is we need to decide if a particular law or bill can be more harmful than beneficial. If so, it should be repealed.

Unconstitutional Laws:
In principle this should be the easiest reason to decide if a law is silly or not. Obviously if it is unconstitutional it will be overturned and therefore a waste of time. If we believe it really needs to be a law; then the solution is to make it a constitutional amendment, which was done in regard to income taxes (amendment 16) and prohibition (amendment 18). The latter, as stated earlier was repealed when it was realized that it was causing more harm than good.

The problem with this test is that politics (as in all aspects of life) has moved into the debate and so it is anyone's guess whether a law is unconstitutional. An example of this is the Federal Seizure and Forfeiture law used in the fight against drugs.

The problem with this law is it goes against the fourth Amendment to the Constitution: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury (my emphasis) of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence (sic).”

In the case of the seizure and forfeiture law the accused has to prove he is innocent before a judge.

Considering the spirit of the concept, innocent until proven guilty, and the fact of the Fourth Amendment, access to a verdict decided by an impartial jury, we would think this is absolutely unconstitutional. However it was ruled by the Supreme Court to be constitutional.

The only thing we can do as concerned citizens is to decide if we believe a law is constitutional or not. If we believe it is, then look at the other principles to see how it fares in regard to them. If we think it is not, we should let it be known that we are against the proposed bill, or ask for the repeal of the existing law. With some laws or bills, there may be little disagreement: with others, a lot of disagreement.

Laws that Are Too Complicated and Illogical to Easily Understand:
Sometimes a law is too complicated to easily understand resulting with it being broken because the person does not understand what it is. You have often heard the adage, “Ignorance is no excuse,” but how does that hold up when the law is so complicated that it can only be decided if it was broken or not by a judge, and even then several judges may disagree with each other.

An example is what happened to Leslie Riggins of Seattle Washington in 1988.

He had a fixed blade sheath knife in public view while he was waiting for a bus and was arrested. He fought it in court and lost. This is how convoluted the law was. If he was going to hunt or fish that day, he could carry the knife as he was doing for the entire day. If he used the knife because he was performing a task or job, he could only wear it while he was using it.

In this case he wore it because he and his brother were going to go fishing. Instead they ended up repairing his brother's roof. He did use the knife but then did not put it back in a tool box. When he was talking to the police officer he did not think he was doing anything wrong so he told the police officer what happened that day and got arrested. He was convicted and lost the appeal.

Another example is the Texas Knife laws. A stiletto is illegal. The statute does not define a stiletto. The accepted definition is a long, thin bladed knife. Thin bladed? When is it thin enough to be a stiletto? I guess it depends upon the police officer first and then the judge and jury next. Pretty silly when you consider that a thick bladed knife is just as dangerous, if not more so.

Summation:
I believe all of the aforementioned reasons why a particular law is silly are accepted by most people as reasonable. The only possible exception is those concerning morality, but in a society where the majority believes there should not be a law, it usually becomes unenforceable.

The more laws we have that are silly, stupid or insane the more chances we have of breaking them making us criminals and allowing the State to fine us, which is to its advantage because it give the State more money and control over our lives. Something to think about…

In evaluating a law on the books or a bill that is being proposed, a concerned voter should evaluate the law against the aforementioned principles and see if the law falls into one or more of the categories. If it does, then why should it become a law? The law will not be successful and will only make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Victimless crimes:
These next set of reasons (principles) as to why a law is silly are going to be more controversial. Basically it comes down to a conflict between two philosophies. The first is that of freedom. This philosophy states that we are free men and women to decide our own fate, gaining the rewards or suffering the consequences for our choices.

The other philosophy is that society at large, or in other words, the State, tells us what we can and cannot do for our own good. I need to mention again that we are talking about laws that the only one who is directly affected by the particular behavior is the perpetrator. In other words the person performing the behavior is the only one who directly suffers from it.

That being said all of us know that any choice we make will affect those who love us, but I suggest that is indirect. Otherwise there could be laws that require that we stay fit, do not participate in risky sports, and all of us get a higher education because otherwise we may make our loved ones' lives less desirable.

When looking at this there are two classifications of laws to consider. There are those laws that attempt to make people do certain behaviors for their own safety or health and there are laws that attempt to stop people from doing behavior that is unsafe or unhealthy.

An example of the first classification is the seat belt law. An example of the second classification is the illegality of smoking marijuana.
_______________________________________________________________
Article in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/knives.pdf

One of the arguments for laws that encourage certain behavior and discourage other behavior is because poor choices affect society in that all of us have to pay for the medical bills incurred by that individual who made the poor choice. This argument is solid as far as it goes but there are other ways that issue could be handled.

Also that kind of reasoning allows the state to implement laws that tells us what we cannot do (eat fatty foods) or what we must do (exercise). Is that what we want?

Laws to encourage safety or healthy behavior:
Let me state up front that I place personal freedom above safety or health. Or said another way, I believe each of us should evaluate our behavior and the risks it causes. To the degree we prize our personal freedom over safety and health will be to the degree we will think some of these laws are silly or not. To the degree we tend more to the side that the State knows best, is to the degree we believe there should be these types of laws.

But here again we have the previous reasons or principles that we may look to for guidance. Probably the most important reason is will the law change the behavior?

Will the law change the behavior?

If it does not then the law is of no value for it did not affect the behavior it was supposed to affect. Do people still drive without their seat belt? More importantly has the law made a significant change with most people, or not? In the seat belt case I believe it has. More than likely most people consider that a good law.

When I was in California several years ago I went into a restaurant that served alcohol. There were signs everywhere telling everyone how dangerous drinking alcohol is, especially if you are pregnant. These signs were posted by law.

Personally I believe they didn't affect anyone's behavior since virtually everyone already knows this, so I think it is a costly and silly law.

One last thought each of us should explore concerning these kind of laws is what are the unintended consequences they may have on future laws telling us what we must do. Many in our society are overweight, do not eat properly, and practice unsafe sex. To what degree should the state tell us what we have to eat, what pills we are required to take, the amount of time we must spend in leisure, to what degree we must exercise and what protections we are required to have during intimacy. If history is any indication, that which seems ridiculous now, may be accepted as reasonable in the future based on the principles we accept.

Laws to discourage unsafe and unhealthy behavior:
Of course as with the previous type of law, our feelings about the silliness of this law will depend upon our philosophy of personal freedom vs. Society's responsibility to take care of our safety and our health.

The questions about the degree to which a specific law will work and the unintended consequences of that law are the same as for the previous type of laws.

An example of how well does a law work is the Federal and State laws against the use of marijuana. Let us assume for the sake of argument that marijuana is absolutely bad for our health and has no benefits. The question then becomes does the law work? To decide this, here are some questions we need to try to find answers for.

Does this law make marijuana harder to obtain?
How much violence is perpetrated because of the law?
Does it reduce the percentage of people who use it?
Would the product be safer if it was legal and regulated?
How many lives are ruined by otherwise responsible young adults because
they were caught?
Would society be better off if it were appealed?

Because Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska have now made it legal to recreationally use marijuana, we may get answers to some of the questions. I have read quite a bit from both sides of the issue. Not surprisingly, those against it are reporting a lot of bad consequences and those for it suggest that everything is rosy and those states are benefitting from making it legal. Time will tell who is right…

Another law on behavior that is hotly contested concerns gun control and the second amendment. Is gun control good or bad? Again, we need to ask ourselves questions.

Does gun control work, by keeping guns out of the reach of people with ill
intent?
How often are guns used to ward off crime?
What is the history of counties that have banded gun ownership all together?

The answers are there; if it is important to you, do the research. As usual each side has its set of facts. With a little diligence, you should be able to find the truth.

Conclusion:
The purpose of this treatise was to state principles, questions and reasoning we might use to evaluate a law to see if it is silly or not. I hope that it has been helpful.

enough