1)"...the dimensions of human activity we care about are always far more
numerous and complex than what can be captured in formal rules, so rules
always contain escape hatches." Which rules tend to have more loopholes
(precise rules, flexible rules, neutral rules...)?
2)If rules of thumb(police officer gives you a cushion of 10 mph)directly
affect formal rules (law), what prevents people from using rules of thumb
for their defense in such cases as a 10 mph traffic violation, in a court
case. Stone explains in the last few pages of the chapter what happens
when people go by the book, instead of what is normally tollerated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
#2(Ryne)
I was going to use a different example to make my point, but I will use the driving example for convenience. A cop will usually “give” you ten miles over the posted speed limit. If they give you a ticket for going seventy-five miles per hour on the freeway, then (by the book) you were breaking traffic law. Now, the wise man would just pay the ticket and go to traffic school. The unwise man will go before a traffic court judge and contest the ticket. The judge will ask “were you going seventy-five miles per hour?” And you will answer “Yes”. The judge will let the ticket stand (because it is your word against the cop’s…by the way, the judge always sides with the cop) and he will probably laugh at you. Why? Because, by the book, you were breaking the law. Society’s rules of thumb work as long conditions are in your favor. In this case, you need the cop to have bigger fish to fry than pulling you over for a ten mile an hour traffic infringement.
(Ryne#1) I have to agree with Alex on he fact alone but at the same time i was just talking about this with a friend and it seems as if the simple answer would be the more flexible rules but when we continued our conversation further i realized that it is the precise rules that have those huge loop-holes. For example the recruiting policy for college coaches to talk with prospective athletes makes it so they can't during certain times or until they are admitted to the school. The one loop-hole in this law is text messaging. Their is nothing in the books about that. Then the new hands-free while driving rule... yet again you were aloud to text message.
Actually, you aren't allowed to text while driving any more. They instituted that a few months ago, I thought. Either way, there has to be SOME point at which the rules are no longer allowed to be bent. Let's take the driving example and say that you can actually be guaranteed (or be reasonably sure of) a 10 mph cushion with regard to speeding. If the speed limit is 50 mph but you'll only get punished if you're going 60 mph or above in a 50 mph zone, isn't the speed limit actually 60 mph no matter what the sign says? Rules are inflexible by definition; if they're able to be bent, they're guidelines (at the risk of sounding like I'm quoting Pirates of the Carribbean). As much as common sense tells us that a little bending of the rules won't hurt - and usually it won't - society would be wildly inefficient and probably unjust if we actually took the time to analyze every situation in terms of whether or not it deserved a little wiggle room. Overall, in large, advanced societies like ours, the hard and fast rules are necessary to keep us functional.
2) To answer your question, what prevents people from using rules of thumb for their defense in such cases as a 10mph traffic violation, the law prevents people from using these normally tolerated rules of thumb. When it comes to the justice system, there isn't much room to work with, usually what the law says decides the ruling. These precise rules are definitely necessary for our society. If there was "wiggle room", people could find loopholes in every rule and nothing would get solved. Many times we need to have the rule laid out simply with no room for a loophole. For instance, just because people get away with going 75 in a 65 doesn't mean that the rule is relaxed or that it should be relaxed. A cop might not see the driver or might have something more important. But this doesn't mean it shouldn't be the law. If we allowed this 10 mph room then the wiggle room would just keep expanding and nothing would ever get settled. We need precise rules.
2. I know I follow the rule of thumb when I am on the freeway, i figure I can drive as fast as I want as long as I am following someone going faster. But if I were to get pulled over and the person in front of me wasn't seen, I would be screwed. Because the rule of thumb(and what others do and deem legit) is not the real rule. To be totally safe from scantions it is safest just to follow the laws. Rules of thumb are vague, there for they wont stand up in traffic court. I believe that if you wanna be safe, you should follow the real rules, then if you are prosecuted, you have something solid to fall back on.
kirsten nilsson
what prevents people from using "rules of thumb" defensively is the informality. it is not stated anywhere that "set" rules should have a little bit of cushion. in this case the police man is giving a ten m.p.h cushion to be practical(in my opinion). i think the initial LAW that is set is a marker for enforcement. if the speed limit is 55 and someone is driving at 57 are they actually speeding; and what entitles "speeding". does this imply that speeding is a sense of recklessness? i think that everyone is going to have a different idea or "tolerance" for rules of thumb in the end which explains why it is not used as a defense. it is controversial. if there was a set "rule of thumb" of a ten m.p.h cushion, what would keep people from driving 65 in a 55 consistently. it just wouldnt work.
To answer your question, what prevents people from using rules of thumb for their defense in such cases as a 10mph traffic violation,is the common rules of the road. If there are several cars that are speeding on the freeway and onl one person gets pulled over that would suck for that one person. This as happened too one of my friends and the cop said to him "have you ever been fishing?" This is very true for the rule of thumb for the common speeding. It is all up to the cop that pulls the person over.
The traffic law has to be specific so that there are no loopholes and people can't get around it. But since most people break that law every time they drive, a policemen has to use a "rule of thumb" to categorize those who are driving dangerously fast. To me this makes it even more difficult to fight your case in court because if you got pulled over for speeding then you must have been going exceedingly fast, not just a few miles an hour over the limit.
I think that precise rules have more of a loop hole in them. A lot of the time cops dont pull you over for the "10 mph over" I know that in AZ we have speed radar cameras and even though the speed limit is 65, they will only take your picture if youre going 76 or over. Dont think you that if the speed limit is 65.. then shouldnt it take your picture at 66? Also, they mail you the ticket. And like everyone knows, if you get a ticket you should pay it. But, for the ticket to actually be effective the cop has to hand it to you. I've had several friends and even people in my family shread the radar tickets the were mailed. and nothing ever happen. The next time they were pulled over they werent even asked about any unpaid tickets. I def. see a few loopholes here
Jordana Bradburn
Post a Comment