Hacker News Reader

Comment by fantasybroker | Hacker News Reader

Not sure why you have such a strong opinion on this. There are countless examples of people suffering immense harm for trivial things that are considered unlawful in some jurisdictions. And no, "so change the law" is not the full answer, that's just blaming the victim.

View on HN

Not sure why you think I have such a strong opinion.

You are not a victim if you break the law, and it's not victim blaming to say that you should follow the law and work to change it if you disagree with it. Plenty of people never smoked pot when it was illegal then started using it recreationally when it was legal recreationally. If you want to break the law I could care less for something victimless like low level recreational drug use but don't be surprised when some regressive jurisdiction nails you for it and punishes you. That doesn't make you a victim, it makes you someone who got caught breaking the law.

How do you keep track of all local, state, and federal laws?

So your thesis is that just because some arbitrary thing is against some law then nobody should use the word victim to describe people having their lives ruined by the enforcement of said law? Because laws are somehow divine and perfect by virtue of them just existing or something? Nobody has ever been the victim of any repressive system of government or "justice" because it was "the law?"

Many people are victims of unjust laws from laws against pot to laws against homosexuality. Thousands of people across the US and across the world are routinely victimized by unjust laws and corrupt police.

This.

Pick pretty much any disadvantaged group and there will be or have been a law that keeps them in their place. I guess they should just follow the rules and complain via the methods the oppressors specify?

The thing is that there is a huge amount of indoctrination from schools to popular media that encourages people to just accept "Law" as somehow of divine providence. Many many people go their entire lives without considering the possibility that the primary function of many laws and "justice" systems would be to oppress and victimize people.

It’s not quite the same thing as what you are describing, but it leads into Peelian Principles of policing. By consent and with transparency.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

This is a great addition to the conversation! I didn't know about the Peelian principles and had only a passing familiarity with the entire concept of 'policing by consent.' Living in the US, it is not surprising that this concept seems foreign to me.

Personally, I still take issue with the idea of locking other human beings in cages. I think a police force that strictly follows the ideals laid out by Sir Robert Peel is about as close to ethical as it can get while still having people whose full-time job it is to enforce society's collective will on others. I believe there will always be better conflict resolution techniques than violence. That being said, the Peelian principles do lay out a seemingly ideal compromise in a society haunted by trauma and violence. Maybe even a path to a society where we don't lock anyone in cages anymore.

I’m in New Zealand which fully subscribes to it (based on my limited understanding!), and had a long talk with a policeman who was walking his dog. He had worked in NZ, the UK and Australia. He put Australia down the other end of the scale and the UK somewhere in the middle. It was a very interesting conversation.

Not only that, you might be able to make that case in a hypothetical system where most people are law abiding, e.g. because there are few laws and only against well known and unambiguously legitimate offenses like murder and theft. Never in one where laws are numerous and broad and commonly violated but selectively enforced.

"You lose your rights if you break the law" in the legal system of Three Felonies A Day is equivalent to no one having any rights.

I don't think getting high and being gay are in any way comparable.

It’s a list, not a comparison.

They are comparable in that they can both get you thrown in prison in various places at various times by people who have a religious mentality when it comes to the nature of the "justice" system.

I hope I can assume that you retract your earlier statement about the term "victim" as it relates to people having their lives destroyed by unjust laws.

From the miscegenation laws mentioned earlier to anti-weed laws to anti-gay laws to any number of other laws, much of our current system of creating and enforcing laws is based around victimizing various people.

Miscegenation and homosexuality aren't choices, getting high is. If you're punished for being with someone you love you're a victim, if you're punished for getting high you're not.

By your logic it makes perfect sense to say "Its a choice to be with someone of a different race. You could perfectly well just choose not be with someone of a different race. Since its a choice you are not a victim."

It seems the line is arbitrarily drawn at "getting high". Is this because you dont personally like the idea of other people getting high or is there some other logical basis for your determination?

Say holding some religious belief is illegal. By all accounts what religion you believe in is a choice. Is the person who is punished for their religious belief a victim? They could have just chosen not to hold that belief but they "went against the law". So theyre not a victim?

I am going to disengage from this conversation as I suspect this stance has less to do with any logical reasoning and more with personal conviction. Which is fine, no shade on anyone for their personal convictions. As long as they dont go around trying to force that on other people. ;)

Literally in the comment you're replying to I said it's not a choice but okay. You can "disengage" for whatever made up reason you want, but you're wrong about my stance as clearly you're not even reading the comments to which you're replying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com