The Frankish Reich Posted Tuesday at 08:22 PM Posted Tuesday at 08:22 PM Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I don’t know. I would think that allowing the families of victims to author/write/vote on laws, but at some point you have to trust the rule of law. Written, debated, voted on….boom it’s done. It is done. But unfortunately (dare I say like most victim-named legislation?) parts of the law are ill-considered. Because, well, they weren't really "considered" because everyone's afraid of "being against Laken's law" 11 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Other than name aside, how is this a bad bill? I'd read the Reason article. The one thing that is utterly unworkable is the provision that would allow a state to sue the federal government. There's also the fact that as written the statute would seem to apply to someone charged and found not guilty of a minor shoplifting offense, or even someone who was charged with the charges subsequently dropped because the cops found out they had the wrong guy. Just not well thought-out at all.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted Tuesday at 08:27 PM Posted Tuesday at 08:27 PM Just now, The Frankish Reich said: It is done. But unfortunately (dare I say like most victim-named legislation?) parts of the law are ill-considered. Because, well, they weren't really "considered" because everyone's afraid of "being against Laken's law" Such as? And assuming you’re correct, is “Ill-considered” unique to victim-named laws?
The Frankish Reich Posted Tuesday at 10:35 PM Posted Tuesday at 10:35 PM 2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Such as? And assuming you’re correct, is “Ill-considered” unique to victim-named laws? The part about states suing the government. Ill-considered? Well, because the creep who killed Laken Riley had previously committed a petty theft, the law became "theft = mandatory detention." If Laken Riley's killer had previously committed a tax fraud, would it be "tax fraud = mandatory detention?" What does theft have to do with him being a rapist killer? And there's categories of offenders who are left out who may pose more of a risk to future Laken Rileys. In other words: poorly thought-out/knee-jerk reaction laws. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted Tuesday at 10:59 PM Posted Tuesday at 10:59 PM 15 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: The part about states suing the government. Ill-considered? Well, because the creep who killed Laken Riley had previously committed a petty theft, the law became "theft = mandatory detention." If Laken Riley's killer had previously committed a tax fraud, would it be "tax fraud = mandatory detention?" What does theft have to do with him being a rapist killer? And there's categories of offenders who are left out who may pose more of a risk to future Laken Rileys. In other words: poorly thought-out/knee-jerk reaction laws. Interesting analysis, thanks. I thought the law addressed a person here illegally, charged with a violent crime (or crimes that have markers/predictors of future violent behavior), and trying to remove dangerous individuals from the population. The second part of my question dealt with whether or not “poorly thought out/knee jerk reaction laws” were unique to victim-inspired legislation? Or, is it pretty common that language is at times ill conceived, not-thought-out, subject to attack by states etc? I am not an expert of course, but it sure seems like the problem extends beyond the Laken Riley Act.
Recommended Posts