<div><div>Some reflections on the rule of law and violence Post 1 I would actually like to reply to these discussions on law and violence.  But I have too much to say.  It is the main subject of the book I am writing, all though the book focuses on ancient city states and the formation of legal institutions. To begin with their is a difference between what most of us would recognize as violence and what the law defines as violence. To conflate one with the other is pure sophistry.  It surprises me that Woj would fall into this kind of sophistry because after all he originates from a state whose laws were once made by a Stalinist bureaucracy. There are four issues, 1) What "we" would consider to be a violent act; 2) What the law defines as a violent act, 3) What the law defines as "not- a violent act" even though most people would consider the act a form of violence.  And 4) the larger moral issue (much understood by the likes of William Lloyd Garrison, for example) of the division between simple truths, hard problems, and basic societal hypocrisy. What the law defines as violence and not-violence mostly revolves around the issue of who/whom, in other words of who is considered outside or inside the law, and who of a certain class, status, race, or sex does what to whom of another particular class, status, race or sex.  To make the question simple let us say that Woj's idea that violence by definition of the law does make things simpler though by no means does it solve problems.  This is an old debate in law that goes back at least to Bentham.  There is no tautological way out of these issues.  Thus if a woman waits in a car while her husband goes inside to take money from the register of a store is the woman guilty of a violent crime?  If she knew that the man was going in to do something illegal but just though he was going to shoplift some milk but in fact he was committing armed robbery, is she participating in a violent crime and is she by definition a violent criminal?  In many jurisdictions the answer is yes.  These variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction sometimes are a matter of legislative criminal law but often enough it is simply judicial interpretation of the law.  It has very little to do with conscious democratic decision making.  Again in the U.S. this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Typical Criminal Law Fact Pattern: Woj, if you accept a package at your door from UPS, and unbeknownst to you that package contains drugs which are going to be sold by someone who lives in your house, (son, roommate, wife) are you guilty of drug distribution.  Well, you might not know what is in the package but it is still possible for you to go to jail for 20 years in some jurisdictions, if it is concluded that you should have known what was in the package.  It is also possible to convict you of being part of a criminal conspiracy on these facts.  If that criminal conspiracy had been involved in violence then for accepting that package at the door you are by definition a violent criminal. Jerry Monaco  </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">[WS:] I think this question is rather easy to answer - because the law defines it that way.  This is not an exception.  There are many things that seem perfectly acceptable to many people, yet they are illegal because the law says so.  Anyone who does not like these laws is perfectly free to organize like-minded people to petition lawmakers to change them, or else vote into office those willing to do so.  Or failing that, abstain from situations that may bring them in conflict with the law, or take the risk knowing the consequences (and do not cry foul when these consequences materialize.) I am reasonably certain that if it came to a vote, a great majority of people in this country would be in favor of strict anti-crime laws, including a rather broad definition of violence to obtain more severe penalties for those who break the law.  Whether it makes sense or not is totally irrelevant, because public support will make changing these laws unrealistic, to say the least. Wojtek ___________________________________ <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> </blockquote></div> -- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture <a href="http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/">http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/ </a> His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/">http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/</a> Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/">http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/</a>