Re: Re: Re: Regional Subtleties in Criminal Law
 

Philosophy has nothing to do with it. We have this Constitution that clearly gives favor to states' autonomy over federal law whenever possible and/or convenient. In a country this large, with so many local differences from one area to the next, uniform application and enforcement of laws would be ineffective and unworkable.

When I went to D.C. to visit my future wife, she stopped me from crossing a clear street against the Don't Walk signal, because there was a cop nearby. Apparently you can get a ticket there for jaywalking (I don't know if they impound your shoes as well.) Something like that wouldn't make sense here in Louisville.

Traffic violations are not criminal law and are best handled locally.

Having a common criminal law in a nation is not ineffective and unworkable. It is, in fact, effective and workable in almost every nation in the world.

State by state jurisdiction over criminal law in America is an aberation resulting from the political power of the original states of the union when agreeing among themselves on a Constitution that made sense politically in 1787.

What is a crime and how it is punishable should not vary from Maryland to Virgina to Texas to California, in my opinion. That will probably never change, as it is enshrined in the Constitution, but I don't think it is a well designed balance of power for a federal government in the modern world.

I wouldn't go as far as juju and ask whether criminal law (justice) should be universal if, by that, he means worldwide. Nations have a right to self determination and different cultures are entitled to have different codes of conduct. Cities and city-states or provinces or states should not set standards for a society that aspires to have a national character.

Obviously, there are many Americans who put their personal "nationalistic" feelings and loyalties first to their State and then to their Country in the USA, and this just an example that some regional disparities are not so subtle.

The only point I'm making is that criminal law ought not to be a matter of regional approach within a nation and is a weakness in the American system of government in my opinion.

Tob, Mrs. Tob must be incredibly cautious. The only police that might give her a hard time about that sort of thing in DC are the U.S. Capitol police (who patrol areas around the Capitol). Better to be safe than sorry though. :)

Nic, I understand what you are saying. On the surface, I agree with your opinion.

I may sound biased in saying this, but from what I've seen, the United States is truly an anomaly. We don't have that sense of collectivism that many countries seem to share. While we do have bits and pieces of a collective society, Americans are incredibly individualistic as a whole. UT and Tob did great jobs IMO of breaking it down earlier, but as I see it, the name of our country says it all: We are united states. Each colony was originally formed for one reason or another (be it religious freedom, agricultural purposes, whatever), and 226 years ago, those colonies found it in their best interest to form a union. And today, while there are some general issues that we share as a nation (e.g. security), each of the 50 states has different needs and desires. What's important to Rhode Island may not be the same as what is important to North Dakota. And in the end, I think this leads to different viewpoints, which leads to different decisions on what is okay and not okay in a state.

When it comes to something like the death penalty, the Commonwealth of Virginia has decided that it is okay to execute 17 year olds. The residents of Virginia have not had a major uproar over it from what I've seen, so the majority apparently thinks it is okay. If residents against this were that appalled, they may try to find others who share their interests, join together, try to push their agenda to the legislature, and maybe even force a public referendum on it.

The only real problem that I think exists in having laws that vary from state to state is on the individual level. I've lived in 5 different states in the last 5 years, and trying to figure out what's legal in Maryland and what's not in Pennsylvania can be a bit confusing. However, as a whole, laws are generally the same from state to state, so people don't have to sweat too terribly.

So friends, make sure you send a change of address card in whenever you move. You get a nifty new residents packet that explains some things, and gives you resources for any further questions. :)

Cam, I just saw a bottle of Tahitian Treat at Wawa (a convenience store chain in these parts), and I immediately thought of you. :)

Canada Dry makes a variety of sodas that I've only seen since moving to Philadelphia. (Previous to moving here, Tahitian Treat had been the only one I've seen, other than their ginger ale varieties.) I particularly like their Vanilla Creme, but they also make Black Cherry, Lime, and Pineapple.

Well, we like it this way. It's especially good that when one state does something stupid, they don't all have to.

For instance, the only place you can buy hard liquor in PA is a State Store, so-named because it is in fact owned and run by the state...well, the Commonwealth, actually. It's a fairly stupid idea, and it's predicated on the notion that having the state control liqour will somehow reduce drunkenness and alcoholism. It's a difficult institution to dislodge, because it tends to be staffed by beneficiaries of polirical patronage and civil service/union drones. And the monopoly tends to keep prices artificially high. (If we'd managed to elect Fisher we might have been able to get rid of it, but too many people went for Slick Eddie's siren song last Tuesday.)

If I found this sufficiently annoying, I could move to a neighboring state. But I don't, and what keeps me from doing so is 1) I don't drink enough booze for it to matter that much to me and 2) most of the neighboring states (MD, NJ, NY) have dirt-stupid gun laws...and that *does* matter to me. (There is some hope for MD, they've got a new govenor too. :-) )

So everybody gets to decide which mix of laws suits them best and we've got at least 52 flavors to choose from. It's very much like watertight compartmentization, the impact of bad decisions is limited, and good decisions can propigate from one state to another only if the local residents agree that what they did in Georgia is a good idea for North Dakota, ferinstance.

In a federal criminal law system one state doesn't have the authority to do something stupid that all the other states have to follow. That's actually the point, I guess. States shouldn't be enacting criminal laws.

It's great for you that you and those you're representing as "we" like it this way.

In a federal criminal law system there is still state controlled traffic rules and liquor sales regulation and property laws and education laws and municipal law. In all of that there is ample opportunity for regional disparity and local governance.

The only point I was making was with respect to criminal law. Criminal law is arguably better if it is applicable to all the people of a nation. It is a union under a common set of values and laws determining what is criminal behavior.

Federalism allows for a reasonable distribution of powers. The division of constitutional powers to enact criminal laws is debatable, and not everyone will agree on that, but it is not an argument against a national criminal code that some folks like their booze in grocery stores and others don't.

Even gun registration could be a state issue as a property law, although that would not be my recommendation. What happens when someone does something criminal with a gun should be the same regardless of the state in which the crime occurs.

Tob, something tells me that I either know you or know of you (more likely). :)

I don't blame you. I had 2 roommates during my first year at the newly-remodeled West. We had to throw one out b/c he wouldn't do anything about his horrible body odor. My other roommate was alright, but he was a bit strange...maybe more than a bit. Last I heard before I left, he had become a CA at North. *shakes his head*

Did living at South ever get to you at all? Especially when most upperclassmen move off campus or to Myers after the first 2 years.

I was on 7 in west, so it was a bit more tricky...especially since the CA lived on my floor. We would take the elevator up to 8 (No CA there) and slip down one of the stairwells to alcoholic freedom. :)

Never went there, but heard of it plenty. Refresh my memory...was that the old TKE house on N. Sprigg towards Broadway?

There was also "the corner" (the house on the SW corner of Sprigg and Normal)...lots of crazy shit there. And the old Phi Sig house. And the Pike House. And then there was that joint over in Illinois, near the Crackle, that kept getting busted by the police.

I don't know about any top-ten lists, but that place was party central apparently. It was like Carbondale is now (or at least how I remember Carbondale in the mid-90s).

All in all, my time in Cape wasn't too bad, particularly my last semester there. There are times when I wish I would have stayed there for the full 4 years, but I'm not one for regrets. UMSL had a much better psychology program, and I think going back to St. Louis set me up for my adventures out here. It's all good. :)

The problem with instating uniformity in criminal law, is there is usually a trickle down effect. Once the Federal government got a taste of that power, it wouldn't be much longer before they were controlling the state traffic laws, and everything else. This is not a good things, as each state is different geographically and socially we need our differences.

That's a specious argument.

I'm just making a point as to why it will never happen. I can't come up with any good examples of laws that could back up not having it happen. But I think criminal law is so similiar in all the states that it really doesn't matter. Even though I do see your point Nic.

And I see your point ... that it will never happen. ;)

This discussion is relevant to "regional subtleties" though.

It's worth noting that even children in other countries must find it incomprehensible that there can be a death penalty for murder in one state and not in the next. That one state executes minors for capital crimes and another doesn't. This is supposed to be the most advanced society in the world. I think not.

Nic, how do those Quebecois enjoy your federalism?

I guess they did manage to trick the people of the far northwest into having "TIRER" signs on all their post office doors.

Look, if enough of "us" didn't like it, "we" could change it. "We" being the people who live here.

(As opposed to "you*, who don't. Perhaps you should start out by fixing your own government. If you don't think it needs fixing, you're invited to stay there. :-) )

Seriously, it's our governement. It works pretty damn well, for whatever flaws it may have. We've been known to change our constitution when the situation warrants.

You sneer at our constitution for being 200 years old, but it *works*, and has survived some incredible challenges over that time. I think having some diversity in our legal system has had important positive survival value for us. We have found that we need some freedom in our freedom.

We even fought a incredibly bloody civil war over the division of power between the states and the Feds...which the Feds *won*...yet still left the amount and kinds of power at the state level that you see today.

We've got ten times your population in approximately the same land area, and (despite what it may look like from watching our movies and TV programming, most of which we should apologize for) our culture is consequently more diverse.

Your own shiny new constitution is so wonderful that there's still serious secessionist sentiment among about 40% of Quebecois, who still have their own courts and legal system, if my information is current. Even getting an authoritative version of the 1982 constitution in French was a big complicated deal.

But I'm *not* criticising your government. You folks should work out your own issues in your own way. See, that's the beauty of having borders and regionalization. And that's the philosophy behind the US Federal Constitution.

Look at it this way: How confortable would you be if the US and Canada were magically united under a strong federal governent? Would you accept willingly whatever centralized federal legal system "we" all wanted...knowing that anglophone ex-Canadians would represent less than 5% of the electorate of the new country?

Give me a fuckin' break ... I'm not sneering at the Constitution at all, let alone for being 200 years old ...

I see that there is a Citizenship requirement to debate the American Constitution in the Cellar.

Well, excuuuuuuuse me. I didn't know.

Once again, patriotism rears its ugly, irrational head.