With Spitzer and multi-thousand dollar hookers, Larry Craig and his wide stance, the ex-New Jersey gov and his wife’s threesome, Bill and Monica, and now this about Spitzer’s replacement, is there a politician in the country who hasn’t been gittin’ some on the side? Have we reached the point where a politician would be afraid to admit to fidelity because that’s apparently becoming the un-normal thing to be?
David Paterson, New York’s New Governor, Admits To Extramarital Affairs For Years
The thunderous applause was still ringing in his ears when the state’s new governor, David Paterson, told the Daily News that he and his wife had extramarital affairs.
In a stunning revelation, both Paterson, 53, and his wife, Michelle, 46, acknowledged in a joint interview they each had intimate relationships with others during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.
#29
Indeed, it is your prerogative to ignore any law. Each person makes a personal risk assessment when deciding to respect any law. Is the benefit of robbing a bank worth the risk of being caught and thrown in jail for 20 years? Is the benefit of getting to work ten minutes earlier worth the risk of a small fine?
Criminal laws are not meant to be statements of morality. They are boundaries of behavior set down by the local, State and/or Federal government. The more problematic a behavior becomes, the stiffer they make the fines so that the risk in disobeying the law is higher.
#30 – I am understanding his point… if that is what you mean by connecting. I’m also making my own. It doesn’t have to be the same point.
All was okay when the rules were; be safe on the road, don’t steal, don’t murder. Now we are mired down in a complex web of law that can turn on us at any moment… cops who routinely overstep their authority… and civil liberties vanishing at a breakneck pace.
My point is that “we” have choices. We can live our lives or be slaves. If enough people choose against slavery, well… they can’t lock us all up. (they could shoot us… maybe)
#31 – Criminal laws are not meant to be statements of morality.
Yes they are. They are moral. They are economic. They are meant to uphold the status quo. Many laws are legitimately concerned with public safety, but far too many more are concerned with moral behaviour.
Tell me that sodomy laws aren’t about morality. Segregation law was certainly about morality (and by our modern perspective, immoral). Most drug prohibition laws are about morality.
They are boundaries of behavior set down by the local, State and/or Federal government.
Often to control personal behavior deemed immoral by our “betters.”
The more problematic a behavior becomes, the stiffer they make the fines so that the risk in disobeying the law is higher.
To many things that are against the law are not “problematic” to anyone at all. They just jive with the values of the wealthy class.
RE: Criminal laws
Morality and economics are not complimentary concepts unless you are claiming morality to be a scarce resource (clearly there is an argument for that :->) Criminal law uses a variety of punishments to discourage contrary behavior of which financial punishments are one. Other types of punishment include community service and confinement. However, that you receive a fine is not in itself a statement of morality.
The “status quo” is not a static concept. Legislatively, it is represented by the general consensus of the voting representatives. In the case of criminal law, the “status quo” is not a goal unto itself. However that does not mean that individual concepts of “status quo” or morality do not play a role in defining “acceptable” behavior and thus law. Certainly lawmakers use their personal beliefs to craft law. Thus, a criminal law, while the result of morality judgments and consensus is not itself a statement of morality even though it is borne out of the collective morality of the crafters. For example, there are no laws that say that you must help an old lady across the street or that you must give to charity or that you must be cheerful.
I think you are confusing the difference between the purpose of criminal law and the motivations of the people that craft it. Clearly, the crafters of criminal law represent the then current consensus of society’s representatives. One of the reasons for the Constitution is that such a consensus can easily become swayed by a mob mentality and individual rights can be abrogated. Thus, the Constitution sets limits on what types of laws society can make. Unfortunately, the Constitution says nothing about privacy or sodomy, although it now says something about segregation.
> To many things that are against
> the law are not “problematic” to
> anyone at all.
Clearly, they were problematic to *somebody* or else they would have never been passed. One complaint I do have about criminal law is that they can become dated in purpose and yet never re-evaluated. I would prefer if almost all laws had expirations of say no more than 20 years. Every 20 years, the legislature would need to review a law to determine if its purpose was still valid and if the law were still effective in serving that purpose. It would also provide motivation for not making reams of laws.