yconic - Legal system is full of redundant charges
Hide Menu

My Feed Money for School Student Help Brands Winners Support Center



Explore yconic
Explore Student Life Topics
Scotiabank
STUDENT CHAMPION
yconic proudly recognizes Student Champion Partners who are providing our community with superior support for their student journeys. Learn More
Student Help Brands

Legal system is full of redundant charges

A photo of BrownianMotion BrownianMotion
The entire legal system is replete with assorted redundant charges that are really nothing more than particularized forms (subsets of) other crimes, and so all those should be eliminated, as well. It really irks me, as a math-oriented person, who likes the idea of streamlining things. Here are a few examples.

(1) I would treat generic cases of robbery the same as bank robbery. This is an example of how certain segments of the population get special categorization which puts robbery of "their stuff" as somehow fundamentally and substantively distinct from others. And to that, I’m going to say no to special pleadings. Distinguishing between the severity of the two acts, and deciding what shall be the appropriate punishment or restitution should be a function of the punishment phase. There does not need to be redundant categorizations for the same fundamental crime. It is fundamentally robbery (force, or threat of force) in both cases, and I would treat both as such.

(2) I would remove the redundant charge of petty theft and grand theft. And once again, as with (1) discussed above, the severity of the crime will be hashed out in the punishment phase. It will not be split unnecessarily into incoherent categories, based on some absurdly arbitrary value or dollar amount.

And I’ll just add in here preemptively, that regarding the plethora of dozens of other redundant theft-related charges which the law is replete with, I’d eliminate all of them for the same reason (e.g. auto theft as a distinct charge in many jurisdictions, for example, or assorted distinct financial crimes related charges, perhaps, etc.)


(3) The charge of "rape" should be eliminated, and re-categorized under the generic assault statutes, and judged the way we would judge any other assault, that being the recognition that some assaults can be more violent than others. Rape does not need it’s own charge.

It should not necessarily become a separate category, just because the damage was more severe. The amount of harm an aggressor caused a victim, is simply taken into account in how harshly they are either punished, or forced to pay restitution for what they have done, and that punishment can work on a sliding scale that goes all the way from a slap on the wrist, right up to death. Simply miscategorizing something does not bring a victim justice. Levying the appropriate punishment or restitution is supposed to (though nothing can ever undo the original act, that’s the best we can do, is held them culpable ex-post).
Was this helpful? Yes 0
3 replies
 
A photo of Anonymous Anonymous
Clearly you have no legal knowledge, and/or this is a troll post. Every offence you described above is differentiated for important and substantiated reasons.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of BrownianMotion BrownianMotion

@ARMY101 wrote
Clearly you have no legal knowledge, and/or this is a troll post. Every offence you described above is differentiated for important and substantiated reasons.



I'm well aware that this kind of idiocy is well entrenched in the current system. I am simply talking about the way I normatively think it should be, not the way it "is." I don’t claim that these aforementioned things are necessarily on my priority list in life. I’d much rather see certain laws I consider unjust eliminated, than what I was talking about above, as I think that kind of thing is far more important.

Having separate categories for petty theft and grand theft, for example, isn’t really harming justice, as the perpetrators are still being punished accordingly for what they have done. I just happen to like the idea of streamlining things, by merging similar categories. It’s like having a government with 15, 742 different agencies, versus 10, 205 different agencies. Maybe the 15, 742 agencies isn’t really harming things all that much, but still, paring it down and merging agencies to eliminate redundancy and overlap, isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if it streamlines things, just so long as it gets the same job done, but doing so with less complexity involved.

And as I said, the severity of the crime can be taken into account during the punishment phase or when determining the restitution.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of KeileTheFriendlyMuuMuu KeileTheFriendlyMuuMuu

@BrownianMotion wrote

@ARMY101 wrote
Clearly you have no legal knowledge, and/or this is a troll post. Every offence you described above is differentiated for important and substantiated reasons.



Having separate categories for petty theft and grand theft, for example, isn’t really harming justice, as the perpetrators are still being punished accordingly for what they have done. I just happen to like the idea of streamlining things, by merging similar categories. It’s like having a government with 15, 742 different agencies, versus 10, 205 different agencies. Maybe the 15, 742 agencies isn’t really harming things all that much, but still, paring it down and merging agencies to eliminate redundancy and overlap, isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if it streamlines things, just so long as it gets the same job done, but doing so with less complexity involved.



I may be wrong (I have no legal experience but am good with words) but these are my thoughts:

Wanting to reduce redundancies and thereby flatten government bureaucracy is nice and all, but the legitimacy of attempts to do so rest on the strength of legal arguments advocating a change of position. And in the particular case of the grand versus petty theft distinction, the essential crux of your argument--that this is mindless proceduralism merely because it does what a punishment could very well do--oversimplifies law (read: this is why Army101 censures you). Mainly because the distinction serves two vital purposes that lead to one single great benefit:

1) it adds objectivity to a judging process that is plenty subjective, protecting both against good- and bad- meaning bias as well as more accurately defining the parameters of what would constitute a winning or losing appeal;

2) it actually saves deliberating and processing time because the judge doesn't have to further compartamentalize crimes into lesser and greater all by himself.

In concert, these make the judge more efficient applicator--rather than creator--of law.

I'd like Army101's opinion on this analysis. Maybe corrections too.
Was this helpful? Yes 0