TheFeniX

Laws like this get passed because a majority of the people in that area (50+%) don't like an activity that they've seen. The results of that can be helpful to the community as a whole or they can be based upon outright malice. Also, when people inherently biased about a situation (or completely uninformed) start basing laws or procedures off that, the results can be hilarious.

Key point: my old neighborhood allowed Fort Bend County to patrol our streets because "roving kids and their loud cars are destroying this neighborhood." After two months, they told the cops to get lost because "they weren't doing their job." Why? Because 90+% of the tickets were written to home-owners over the age of 21. Hence, they weren't just busting kids because they couldn't when the exact laws they were brought in to enforce were being broken by the home owners.

So, on a whim: a POA was able to waste taxpayer money on a problem that they had, not who they thought had. It happens like this all the time. In order to keep blacks from voting, state passed "literacy laws" which were then repealed quickly because there were many whites who couldn't read either, and hence could not vote. That's an extreme example, but it demonstrates what happens when "small-town" mentality is allowed to run rampant.

I could post example after example that shows how small governments jump through hoops and just do a bang-up job at creating inconveniences on a whim. I'm just not about to do it.

First off: I seriously doubt the community is no longer "predominantly Christian" because even in cities and states considered "liberal," Christianity dominates the religious strata. And just because they aren't "observant" on some Christian policies, doesn't mean they aren't Christian.

Second, by what criteria do they define what businesses can stay open? It's good business if you're allowed to keep your doors open? How is that fair to the business owners who are forced to close.

The problem is degrees of separation really. The federal government can't and doesn't always take into account what might be good for a general community in X state, in X county. On the other hand, Local governments are notoriously bad about protecting rights of the minorities. Also, the small and more homogenous a community is, the more likely they are to been exceedingly biased against anything/anyone different.

While federal laws are updated as they "realize" that certain protections have been left out, smaller government entities actually enforce laws restricting the rights of minorities. This is the main problem I have with "Blue Laws." They tend to only take into account the majority of a set area, while ignoring anything else.

The only thing really holding them back (at least in Texas) is a set of laws that give a person legal action ability if they can prove they are being singled out for harassment. I believe this is what stopped Wallis from continuing to harass my brother after he complied with all the new laws passed to try and make him "go away." Oh yea, and the Church next door was a big part of that. If you want to learn a lot about a small town's general make-up and thought-process: talk to the librarians out there. They know everything and they love to talk.

__________________

Kerostasis

So I've reached the point where nearly everyone in the Sandbox is on my list of "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to (this person) again". Even people I disagree with! I may have to start browsing some other forums just to find more people to +rep. >.>

__________________

ScratchMonkey

This is why you need something like a Bill of Rights, to protect minorities from simple majorities. (Hmm, "simple" could mean more than one thing there! ) I don't think a law should pass without a super-majority, somewhere from 66-90%, to establish a significant degree of consensus.

We also have a jury system in which it only takes 1 member in 12 to acquit, which should in principle provide a reverse super-majority of 11/12, but judges have taken to telling jurors that they can't judge the law, only the facts, so that system of minority veto has largely been nerfed.

__________________
Sig

leejo

Juries only make unanimous decisions. When 1 juror out of 12 disagrees with the rest, it's a hung jury.

And judges are certainly correct to instruct juries on this and many other points, but judges don't make jurors' decisions for them. If a jury wishes to acquit for any reason whatsoever, the only requirement is that all 12 agree.

ScratchMonkey

I don't recall the rule in a civil case, but in a criminal case, you can only convict with 12 jurors in agreement. Anything less and at least another trial is necessary before the prosecution can proceed.

__________________
Sig

leejo

Right. That's not an acquittal though. That's a hung jury. A unanimous "not-guilty" verdict is an acquittal.

In other words, if the jury fails to reach a decision, then the DA must decide whether or not to re-try the case. However, if the jury does reach a "not-guilty" decision, in which all 12 members of the jury agree that the prosecution failed to prove the defendant's guilt, then the prosecution is done.

ScratchMonkey

Ok, I stand corrected.

It seems to lend even more support for requiring super-majorities when passing laws, to eliminate the need for jury nullification ex post facto to veto bad laws.

(BTW, speaking of Latin, did anyone see last week's Doctor Who, about the detonation of Pompeii? They explain how the Doctor and his companions can be understood by the locals no matter where or when they go. It's hilarious what the translator field does when they speak Latin in ancient Pompeii. Says a local: "Oh, you're Celtic?")

__________________
Sig

TheFeniX

That's not hard to get in a sufficiently homogeneous community. I've heard of a few communities in Texas made up of completely white members working against any minorities moving into their community. Granted, this was more of an "underground" bit of racism, rather than anything in the legal field.

So, for State and "smaller" government entities this system might work, but on a federal level: when was the last time we got 90% of people in the country to agree on anything?

A lot of people decry State governments while playing up the Federal side, or vice versa. I've always looked at it like: the smaller governments look after the demographic in a given area. The Federal government then makes sure anyone else isn't getting the short end of the stick.

You do realize that even going to court can have disastrous consequences for even the obviously innocent? Prosecutors working on the tax-payers dime may not even have to have any sort of real evidence against a citizen to force a plea bargain if he lacks the funds to fight the charges in court. I make fairly decent money, but hiring a lawyer would most likely destroy me financially.

Most challenges of this nature have to be carried out by people who aren't even really at risk. Do you think Larry Flint really had to fight the meager $500,000 fine levied against him? No, but he fought on principal. But he could do that as he was a millionaire.

This is why protections of the law have to go further. For example, now in Texas: if you fight back in self-defense and the State itself finds that criminal charges cannot be filed against you, you are also immune to civil charges. Personally I've been a fan of "loser-pays" mentality, but also applied to the government. Right now, if you're charged and acquitted: good job, now pay the lawyers for the rest of your life. But if some overzealous prosecutor had to worry about paying out when he lost, you'd see a lot less malicious prosecution.

Sure, that type of behavior from a prosecutor is actionable now, but you still have to hire another lawyer and hope the judge allows your case to even be heard. A win isn't guaranteed even if he does. This goes back to my reservations about smaller communities being able to pass laws on a whim.

__________________

Delta*RandyShugart*

with all do respect....your 12-14 year old kid really shouldn't be playing GTA 4....its a neat game but its pretty damn violent.......common sense people.......the government shouldn't have to restrict parents, from purchasing that game for their kids, they should already realize that it isn't appropriate....

__________________
|TG-6th|RandyShugart


"Ah yes, because epilepsy is so cool."- TheSkudDestroyer

Ask not what TG can do you for you, but what can do for TG.
9/11 - Never Forget

Rincewind

There are actually laws against doing that.

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

leejo

Maybe if she's 8 going on 14 I might take the risk, know what I mean? If we have a real connection and everything. You probably wouldn't understand...

ScratchMonkey

I should get my mom to go buy me some. "But, Mom, it's for my prostate!"

(She turned 81 in February.)

__________________
Sig