[brurdefdoro]

Originally posted by Felch
On the basis that they are widely ignored. If they were realistic, most people would obey them. You can't actually believe that, can you? People will always try to go a little faster than the legal limit. The smart legislator would purposefully make the limit 5 mph slower than what he wanted, allowing everyone to think they are "pushing it" while actually doing what is safe for the given road. And that doesn't make the laws meaningless, it just makes them effective. It isn't economically possible (without cameras and automated radar guns and such, and even that is a lot of expense) to monitor every road. If you made all limits exactly what you wanted them to be, and relied on enforcement, there would be much speeding and unsafe driving. If you make limits slightly lower than the ideal, and rely on people then driving a little faster than the posted limit, you get what you want at much lower cost.

But I don't like the idea of the formality, or the absolute power that judges hold over their court rooms. It's contrary to the way that the rest of society works, and I haven't been convinced that there is a benefit. I'm with you in spirit, I really am. If I ever end up in court, even as a witness, I will end up in jail for contempt of court, because I will tell the judge where to stick his gavel if he tries any bull. And I will refer to him or her as "Judge (judge's last name)" and not "your honor" But, this decorum and procedure does serve a purpose. Remember, courts deal with criminals and has a function to fulfill in a limited time. Someone has to be to be in charge, and since it can't be the defendant, and allowing either lawyer to be in control of the court would be unfair to the other side, and the jury isn't versed in the law, it falls to the judge to keep order. While I may disagree with the "your honor" b.s., the rest of the formality is a way of instilling discipline and order on the proceedings.

Also, not the way the rest of society works? Try referring to any of the following in a non-traditional manner: a)your parents b)a teacher (including god forbid one with a PhD) c)your boss d)a customer at your place of work. And there are more. Granted, you may not have to use "your honor" but showing respect to people who have done nothing to deserve it is part and parcel of our society.

Why? Is driving a car on a suspended lisence something so harmful to society that the people who do it need to be locked up? Or is it more likely that this exists so some lawyers can shake the ordinary people down. You need to get a lawyer to prevent the judge from walking all over you, and the judge can walk all over you because the laws are written to give obscene punishments for minor crimes. Dude, you broke the law twice (at least). Once to get your license suspended. Then, you ignored the law and drove anyway. If you don't want judges walking on you and lawyers taking advantage of you, don't break the law twice. This goes to your simple laws you were talking about. A simple law is "Don't drive without a license." Anyone can understand that. It doesn't require a lawyer to decipher that. But you failed to obey anyway. Maybe simple laws won't help after all.

Why not eliminate judges, by perscribing reasonable penalties for crimes? As it stands, you often recieve a sentence that is only a fraction of the maximum penalty. Naturally the penalties can be increased for repeat offenders, but the increases should be in the hands of elected legislatures, not decided at the whims of an appointed judge. Checks and balances. Being elected to legislature is a popularity contest and a part time job (well, you could argue it shouldn't be, and some legislators do work at it full time, but for the most part, part time job). Being a judge involves years of education and being involved with the law day in and day out. I'm quite happy that I get to have a say in who makes the laws, but I'm also happy that someone who has proven he has a brain and who can, in theory, (even if it doesn't always work that way, and it doesn't always work that way) make a decision based on the merits of the case rather than make a decision based on pleasing his constituency is responsible for interpreting those laws.