The Couch

Death By Hanging For Horse Theft?

Comments on Death By Hanging For Horse Theft?

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 12/10/11 - 4:36 PM:
Subject: Death By Hanging For Horse Theft?
I read today that penalty for horse theft in Florida is death by hanging.

Is it still a valid Law over there?

Do you know of the context in which it was made a Law?


Isn't it hilarious?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 12/12/11 - 1:07 PM:

I don't know about that law in particular, but there are a great number of laws still on the lawbooks in America that are highly antiquated and rarely enforced, if ever. I've been told that in many states, it's illegal to have gay sex between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 01/02/12 - 11:10 PM:

libertygrl wrote:
I don't know about that law in particular, but there are a great number of laws still on the lawbooks in America that are highly antiquated and rarely enforced, if ever. I've been told that in many states, it's illegal to have gay sex between consenting adults in the privacy of their own home.



Do you mean to say that those laws are not enforced because they are antiquated or something else?


Have you encountered any news suggesting that the Florida law in the opening post was enforced?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 01/05/12 - 2:22 PM:

Thinker wrote:
Have you encountered any news suggesting that the Florida law in the opening post was enforced?

i have not, no.

Thinker13 wrote:
Do you mean to say that those laws are not enforced because they are antiquated or something else?

because they are antiquated and most social norms stand against them. if some police officer tried to arrest someone for having gay sex in their own home, regardless of what it says on the law books, it would create a great scandal. i knew a guy who used to have a fascination with this kind of thing, posting old laws and pointing out their absurdities. i'm not in touch with him, though, anymore, and i don't remember the specifics. but the law about gay sex i do recall.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 01/05/12 - 2:37 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

because they are antiquated and most social norms stand against them. if some police officer tried to arrest someone for having gay sex in their own home, regardless of what it says on the law books, it would create a great scandal. i knew a guy who used to have a fascination with this kind of thing, posting old laws and pointing out their absurdities. i'm not in touch with him, though, anymore, and i don't remember the specifics. but the law about gay sex i do recall.



That's interesting, but my question is, in spite of any scandals, are not courts of law supposed to do what is most expected from them, i. e. 'justice' and justice would definitely call for using law books, no matter how archaic the laws in those books are.

In that case, scandals at max should call for changes in those law books. Would not they?

I think, it might not be a good question to ask here, still: Are there no provisions in USA constitution to change old and useless laws? If yes, why there are no amendments?


henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 01/06/12 - 9:45 AM:

"Are there no provisions in USA constitution to change old and useless laws? If yes, why there are no amendments?"

Yes, there are provisions on the federal, state, regional, and municipal levels, but, it's generally easier to simply 'ignore' outdated or useless or 'inconvenient' law.

'Law', you must remember, reflects morality (is a codification of whatever passes for 'right and wrong' at any particular time)...morals (de)evolve, but law is static (inscribed in 'stone' as it is).

It's simply easier to let some laws go un-enforced than to expend resources (time, energy, thought, etc) in changing or terminating those laws.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 01/06/12 - 9:49 AM:

henry quirk wrote:
"Are there no provisions in USA constitution to change old and useless laws? If yes, why there are no amendments?"

Yes, there are provisions on the federal, state, regional, and municipal levels, but, it's generally easier to simply 'ignore' outdated or useless or 'inconvenient' law.

'Law', you must remember, reflects morality (is a codification of whatever passes for 'right and wrong' at any particular time)...morals (de)evolve, but law is static (inscribed in 'stone' as it is).

It's simply easier to let some laws go un-enforced than to expend resources (time, energy, thought, etc) in changing or terminating those laws.





I appreciate your point of view. I think, however, why should those useless Laws not be removed, and what is the discretion based on which the judgements deviate from the coded LAW?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 01/06/12 - 9:58 AM:

"why should those useless Laws not be removed(?)"

Cause the process to do so is usually involved and lengthy, and most folks are lazy shits...*shrug*

#

"what is the discretion based on which the judgements deviate from the coded LAW?"

If I get you: why are some laws enforced and others not?

Prevailing values of the community (horse theft used to be a big thing...not so much any more), for one; the obscurity of little used law, for another; general lack of interest by the public and of lawmakers/enforcers to 'do' anything about obscure or little used law, lastly.

It's all an exercise in pragmatism.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 01/06/12 - 10:06 AM:

henry quirk wrote:
"why should those useless Laws not be removed(?)"

Cause the process to do so is usually involved and lengthy, and most folks are lazy shits...*shrug*

#

"what is the discretion based on which the judgements deviate from the coded LAW?"

If I get you: why are some laws enforced and others not?

Prevailing values of the community (horse theft used to be a big thing...not so much any more), for one; the obscurity of little used law, for another; general lack of interest by the public and of lawmakers/enforcers to 'do' anything about obscure or little used law, lastly.

It's all an exercise in pragmatism.




This makes me feel that I have improved my understanding on this matter(by this very discussion). If I have understood you: Tedious formal procedures refrain people from taking interest in change of such codes and the prevalent social structures decide what is to be enforced.


Let us take an imaginary scenario: Suppose a tyrannical ruler comes in future and says that he would play by the book, in that case, there might be trouble for general public who has lived in good faith that there is no 'unjustified enforcement' of laws which seem immoral on the first sight.

An example: Suppose you work in an organization where based on trust you share your password with your boss and this is not in the book; there would be a great upset for you if a boss misuses your credentials and acts smarter than you and puts blame back on you--this would partially be caused by not having things 'on the record'.

What do you make of it?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/06/12 - 1:04 PM:

"Suppose a tyrannical ruler...says that he would play by the book...there might be trouble for general public who has lived in good faith that there is no 'unjustified enforcement' of laws..."

And that would be 'their' mistake (and undoing).

There ain't no 'good faith' to be had from 'governors'.

So: never take an iota of anything for granted.

#

"Suppose you work in an organization where based on trust you share your password with your boss...there would be a great upset for you if a boss misuses your credentials...and puts blame back on you..."

Again: trust no one (especially a 'boss').

I may not the best person to seek a generalized response from... wink
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 01/06/12 - 1:59 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
"Suppose a tyrannical ruler...says that he would play by the book...there might be trouble for general public who has lived in good faith that there is no 'unjustified enforcement' of laws..."

And that would be 'their' mistake (and undoing).

There ain't no 'good faith' to be had from 'governors'.

So: never take an iota of anything for granted.

#

"Suppose you work in an organization where based on trust you share your password with your boss...there would be a great upset for you if a boss misuses your credentials...and puts blame back on you..."

Again: trust no one (especially a 'boss').

I may not the best person to seek a generalized response from... wink



I expected this response, Henry, but public is never ideal nor persons who fall because of trust. That is the context in which I thought of utility of having Law which is utilized, instead of having some obscure lines in books which are misused when you least expect them.


Yes, generalized response cannot be expected from you, but someone reading our discussion might come up with that.
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.