Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Legal
  4. / Criminal Law
  5. / Criminal Law (General)

by PurpleRN on December 27th, 2006

PurpleRN

Question

Help answer this question below.

If no one is committing crimes, and that includes traffic violations, do you think that the government would come up with new laws for people to break so people who work in law enforcement can keep their jobs?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 8 helpful answers below.

  • by tomsims on July 22nd, 2007

    tomsims

    I cannot imagine such a wonderful scenario as you describe where no one committed crimes or traffic violations, but I would welcome it.

    I don't think we manufacture laws so that we can employ lots of people to enforce them. many laws go unenforced now because there is not enough personnel to cover all the priorities. Property crime is virtually ignored in my community when it is against average citizens. I understand that. If it is a choice between protecting a life and a mailbox, the life wins.

    One area of cost-inefficiency, I believe is the prison industry, including correctional officers' unions (not the officers themselves) is a big business and already lobbies for more prisons and longer sentences with a profit motive which the public readily buys under the guise of "getting tough on crime" and public safety when, in fact, there are more cost effective and practical ways of handling non-violent offenders and extracting justice at the same time. We buy it because it is an easy way out.

    This is not to say that we don't need prisons or the fine people who work in them. I do not believe that the rank and file workers are the movers behind these business/political decisions.

    We still need laws and enforcement at this point.

    What would happen if we did not need them? I think we would owe it to the fine people who have put their lives on the line to help them find good jobs in some other field.

    For instance, when a major religious revival swept through Wales over a hundred years ago, crime went to nearly zero and the local police departments had to justify their existence. One chief testified before a town council that they were still quite useful and were, in fact, forming quartets to sing in the church revival meetings. <chuckle> Now that would be a great thing!

    So would be placing an officer in each neighborhood to do community policing. If there were no need for violent crime task forces and complicated investigative units, we could employ many officers in crime prevention and community work.

    The Federal government is doing some of what you suggest by continually federalizing crimes that do not belong on that level. They have taken over investigation, adjudication, and imprisonment of numerous crimes and criminals which, while awful, are none of their business. They do this, I believe, because crime and punishment is a sexy political issue, even in Congressional elections where it is largely irrelevant. The national government can never do, as well or effectively, what local governments can do because they are responsive to the people on a local level.

    I think, for the most part, the answer to your question is "no," with these small exceptions, because the people do, at times, think and act logically. At the moment, we do not have nearly enough people in law enforcement and it is hard to see past that present reality.

    Excellent, thought provoking question.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by coreyandj on December 27th, 2006

    coreyandj

    this is not possible there are so many laws out there that are not even enforced. To answer the question though I think it would because the world would be a bunch of goodie goodies and they would never be happy, and one day sex would be illegal.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on December 28th, 2006

    Anonymous

      I suspect that to some degree, they already do.

      For example, here in the core of Sacramento, there is a confusing set of rules regarding what sides of what streets you can park in on what days.

      I don't see any rational basis on which to suppose that the purpose of these rules is to maintain any kind of fairness or order with regard to how people park.  I think the sole purpose is to confuse us enough that even the cleverest and most diligent of us will occasionally slip up and park illegally.  The one thing that this city is able to do efficiently is to enforce its parking rules.  When you do wind up parked on the wrong side of the wrong street on the wrong day, they are very efficient at catching you and giving you a ticket for it; bearing a fine of $35.

      I remain convinced that the sole purpose of all this is to extract as many of these $35 fines as they can.  It's a very dishonest and corrupt form of taxation, masquerading as law enforcement.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by browneyedbeauty on December 27th, 2006

    browneyedbeauty

    I highly doubt it without a major uproar from society. I think it would be a miracle if no one is committing any crimes at all, so I wonder if this will ever come to be?

    • Like
    • Report

    4 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by dr james on April 12th, 2008

    dr james

    what an interesting and incredible question.

    first..most minor laws , if enforced fully, would put 90% of us in jail.

    secondly, minor laws are a tool that law enforcement has inorder to catch bigger fish.
    most cops want to make the big collar. traffic laws etc enable a good cop to stop a suspicious person or persons in order to get a closer look and probable cause to look deeper and further into a suspects life etc.

    cops dont care about your average speeder..but will stop you if they dont have any felons around. its called keeping the peace. thery are constantly trolling for criminals.
    80% of felons are caught on randon traffic stops.

    the theory is, a criminal will maim, murder, etc, and doesnt care too much for minor traffic laws. this has proven true.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Will on July 22nd, 2007

    Will

    I don't know if it would be about the jobs, but they would certainly do this to keep a inflow of money from fines etc.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Thomas_Edison .. oh so sexy on December 28th, 2006

    Thomas_Edison .. oh so sexy

    lets hope not, but hopefully more job opportunities are created in the policing area because im amaiming that way after school

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on April 12th, 2008

    Anonymous

    We don't have to worry about this. Every cop is taught in the academy that they have excellent job security because their job is not to stop crime (which is impossible), but to help keep a lid on it and avoid it running out of control.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading If no one is committing crimes, and that includes traffic violations, do you think that the government would come up with new laws for people to break so people who work in law enforcement can keep their jobs?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company