DOOYOO AGREE WITH ME? Updated (There ought to be a law about that!)

Member Name: Del_Boy

Product:	There ought to be a law about that!
Date:	07/01/02 (78 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Would make society a better place, No more boy bands/girl bands

Disadvantages: Some of these are unworkable

We have all done it, daydreamed about being able to make up laws and to fully enforce them, now thanks to Dooyoo we have the chance to share these made up laws with other people.

So here are my laws. Some are non serious, some unworkable and some of the utmost seriousness.

First of all a law that is of utmost seriousness, and of paramount importance and is needed so much in society at the moment:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Non Serious laws
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1.

ALL BOY AND GIRL GROUPS SHOULD BE BANNED
*************************************
Please note this also applies to escapees from said groups, such as Geri Halliwell etc

Arguments for the implementation of this law:
****************************************
Groups such as Westlife, S Club 7 etc pollute the airwaves and generally make me very sick. Even worse is accidentally catching said groups doing a 'live' performance and watching them all mime; very badly I might add. What makes this law even more urgent to be implemented is that groups such as these keep genuinely talented people off the radio, and subsequently off the top of the charts.

All people from groups such as these, loath as I am to say it, are talented. Talented in a way that a Red Coat is at Butlins though; so perhaps they should all go back to working there and thus leaving it safe to turn on the radio again.

Arguments against this law
***********************

I could say 'none', but I guess that children do enjoy these groups, and so they do have their place.

2.

MOBILE PHONES SHOULD BE BANNED WHILST ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT
*************************************

Arguments for the implementation of this law
****************************************

Nothing is more infuriating than being on a bus and hearing a crescendo of Mobile Phone rings, some go for the doubly annoying approach of having mobil
e phone rings that sound like tunes that boy/girl groups do.

Nearly every call then consists of the same thing, not that I eavesdrop but many people talk out aloud whilst using the mobile phone for some inexplicable reason. The call generally goes like:

"I'm on the bus, be home in xxxx minutes"

Sometimes the call will involve more complexities, but they are few and far between.

Arguments against the banning of mobile phones on public transport
***********************************

NONE! Having said that this is unworkable and so should be in the next section which is

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unworkable Laws
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3.

ALCOHOL SHOULD BE BANNED ON CERTAIN OCCASIONS
***************************************

Arguments for the implementation of this law
**************************************

Alcohol fuelled idiots tend to enjoy causing trouble. This isn't debatable, however to ban alcohol in general would cause widespread protest and generally put a lot of people out of jobs. What I would like is that alcohol isn't sold on certain occasions, and in certain places. For example, Alcohol should never be sold at Football grounds, as some people seem to abuse that privilege and end up drunk and disorderly and subsequently fuelling a riot.

Perhaps a compromise in certain situations could be reached, cheaper alcoholic drinks for sale but ones that only have a percentage of alcohol that is generally quite low, 2% is around the amount I would aim for. This means you could still get drunk if you were so inclined to get drunk, however you would probably be too busy nipping to the toilet by that time to be concerned with causing trouble.

Arguments against this law
*********************

Admittedly this law is unworkable and flawed, however with some work done on it perhaps it could work ? if accompanied by several other
initiatives. These could be, certain places not letting in people if they are intoxicated above a certain level, again this is flawed and in certain places already used but?. These are my laws so I am allowed to propose the unworkable.

4.

SMOKING SHOULD BE BANNED
********************

Arguments for the implementation of this law
***************************************

Here is a small list:

Smoking damages your own and others health
Smoking pollutes the air ? it also smells incredibly bad
Smoking is expensive
Smoking serves absolutely no useful purpose at all ? anyone who says it is a relaxant is wrong. The only reason it relaxes you is because it sates withdrawal symptoms from the highly powerful addictive substance (more so than Heroin) Nicotine.

Arguments against this law
**********************

Some will claim it is an infringement of Civil Rights, and that smokers are being unfairly victimized and penalized yet again.

Smoking also raised a high proportion of revenue in taxes; this would impact on public service spending. I believe that within 5 years of a law such as this being passed, the economy would still be strong (due to increased spending elsewhere), people would be healthier in general and would be thankful that this law was implemented. Alas this law will never work, and so I draw onto the next section and the most important:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE SERIOUS LAWS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5.

JUDGES HAVE TO GIVE AT LEAST 15 YEARS MINIMUM SENTENCE TO CONVICTED CHILD ABUSERS, ABDUCTORS, AND SEXUAL PREDATORS IN GENERAL
***************************************

Arguments for the implementation of this law
***************************************

There are certain crimes that once committed means that the offender should be sent to prison for a bare minimum of 15 years ? in the VAST majority of cases for life. In
this instance life should mean life and not 8 or so years it is deemed to mean at the moment.

People have been outraged and rightly so at repeat offences committed by these 'things' that should never have been allowed to happen. Surgical or Chemical castration should be the only way that certain offenders can be allowed out of jail, this along with Supervision and Electronic Tagging should all be used to try to stamp out the vile scum and to stop them from harming anyone else.

Naming and shaming of 'scum' does little but drive them underground and encourages vigilantes and lynch mobs. People should not need to resort to Mob Rule, the Courts, and the Prison service should ensure that this situation doesn't need to occur.

Arguments against this law
**********************

A select few 'Human Rights' activists would no doubt be up in arms over such a law, but these people do not matter and shouldn't be listened to. For me there is NOTHING that should stop this law being implemented. Certain states of America have already had this same type of law enforced and many more are set to follow suit in the next few years.

6.

SENTENCING FOR CRIMES IN GENERAL SHOULD BE HIGHER
**************************************

Arguments for the implementation of this law
***************************************

I would pass a law so that the punishment for certain offences that are against the law should be higher. The reasons for this being, that there are many repeat offenders who laugh at the law as it is at the moment and cost society as a whole an abundance of money in Representation (AKA Legal Aid), yet they never get sent down for longer than a few months.

An example, I used to work in a Magistrates Court, the same few offenders would be in on a weekly basis. These offences would be, public order, driving whilst disqualified, no insurance etc. The prob
lem was none of these crimes carried a high sentence and so they ended up just being fined. They laughed at the law, many times. I can't mention anymore on this. Lest it be said though that the Police were incredibly frustrated at having to arrest these idiots and then seeing them being released time and time again. Legal Aid costs for this family for the year must easily run into the tens of thousands.

By locking offenders such as this up after several offences of this nature it would send a message that the law and the legal system were not such a soft touch.

*Updated*
Please note this refers to people who comit offence after offence of what are normally non imprisonable matters. It does not mean that I would impose sweeping changes to all kinds of offences.

Arguments against
************

NONE - the majority of people are law abiding and would also be fed up at seeing people such as these released time and time again with nothing more than a fine and a verbal slap on the wrists.

Combining this with my next law also related to this would send out an even clearer message:

7.

*UPDATED*

PRISONS SHOULD BE PLACES OF PUNISHMENT WITH CUT DOWN LEISURE FACILITIES
***********************************

Arguments for ensuring this is the case
***********************************

I feel I need to point out that this was meant with constant repeat offenders in mind, perhaps a shock to the system. However I can concede that my original viewpoint in this matter was verging on the draconian and have thus toned it down. Privileges should only be given to prisoners who behave or show willing to improve their behaviour.

Arguments against
*************

An arguement that has been put forward in the feedback section is that Prisons are tough enough as they are and the measures that I implied here would lead to more trouble and less effective prisons.
People would become wracked with hatred for society if the prison system was such as this.

I have thus decided that this law would be completely unworkable in it's present state, I will however leave it here for reference.

8.

DRINK DRIVERS SHOULD HAVE CARS IMPOUNDED INDEFINATELY
************************************

For
***

Would stop people from drink driving when they risk losing their cars, and if their work involves driving perhaps their jobs as well. This would save lives.
This system would be workable, but only if a certain level of leeway was given in ordering this to happen. Someone who is over the limit by only a fraction could be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to keep their car, although a ban of several months should be compulsory.

Against
*******

People would argue over whether or not their car should have been impounded, could result in many legal decisions being challenged.


I hope that you have found this interesting, if you have any comments regarding these laws, their implementation and their feasibility I would love to hear them,

Kev

Summary: