Re:Why America's prisons are an unconstitutional moral horro...
by lazide on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @01:14PM
(#26714564)
I think you may also be ascribing more weight to something vague, hangwavey, and PR focused than the reality?
Additionally, the only places I see explicitly saying laws are coming from a place of moral authority are places with Sharia law (literally - sharia means ‘the clear well trodden path to water’ and it’s the codifying of traditions the population considers to work). Pretty much every law in the US that uses morals as it’s justification has been thrown out by the US Supreme Court.
If ‘we all’ are not actually in agreement (always the case) on what is morally right, then what happens?
Is executing a slightly underdeveloped person (80 iq) for murdering several people morally right? Is NOT executing that person morally right?
You could poll the population and get a large chunk of people agreeing with both of those stances very strongly.
Is asset forfeiture morally ok? What if the person is a certain color and speaks with the accent of a certain country to the south of the US?
You can get a large portion of the population to disagree with the first one, and strongly agree with the second.
A law is codifying a stance (writing it down in as unambiguous a way as possible) that can be passed by representatives without them all getting fired/hanged by angry constituents and enforced willingly by a large law enforcement group without getting overridden by a higher power.
Part of the whole not getting fired/hanged part is making sure it can’t be enforced arbitrarily against people their constituents wouldn’t like it being enforced against, and can be against people they do.
It’s a messy business with huge implications for everyone.
Additionally, the only places I see explicitly saying laws are coming from a place of moral authority are places with Sharia law (literally - sharia means ‘the clear well trodden path to water’ and it’s the codifying of traditions the population considers to work). Pretty much every law in the US that uses morals as it’s justification has been thrown out by the US Supreme Court.
If ‘we all’ are not actually in agreement (always the case) on what is morally right, then what happens?
Is executing a slightly underdeveloped person (80 iq) for murdering several people morally right? Is NOT executing that person morally right?
You could poll the population and get a large chunk of people agreeing with both of those stances very strongly.
Is asset forfeiture morally ok? What if the person is a certain color and speaks with the accent of a certain country to the south of the US?
You can get a large portion of the population to disagree with the first one, and strongly agree with the second.
A law is codifying a stance (writing it down in as unambiguous a way as possible) that can be passed by representatives without them all getting fired/hanged by angry constituents and enforced willingly by a large law enforcement group without getting overridden by a higher power.
Part of the whole not getting fired/hanged part is making sure it can’t be enforced arbitrarily against people their constituents wouldn’t like it being enforced against, and can be against people they do.
It’s a messy business with huge implications for everyone.