NewHampshire.com logo   Search NewHampshire.com The homepage for New Hampshire
NewHampshire.com Discounts
Welcome to NewHampshire.com Communities Sign in | Join | Help

Homeward Bound

A southerner finds "home" in New Hampshire

Unintended Consequences

There is a book that is rather well-known in the pro-gun world, with the title Unintended Consequences. Its theme is the fallout from well-intended gun control laws and their natural conclusion; things go badly, to say the least.

 I read today of another law, whose intent is noble, but whose unintended consequences could generate frightening fallout.

Did you know that it is illegal for a U.S. resident or citizen to have sexual contact with anyone
under the age of 18, outside U.S. borders? Even if such contact would be perfectly legal at home in the U.S.? The law doesn't even require sex to take place, but merely attempting to have sex.

That sounds like a noble idea: stop U.S. perverts from going to poor countries and taking advantage of local custom by having sex with young children. What could be wrong with that? Unintended consequences, that's what.

For starters, it sets the age of consent at 18, even though many states allow consent at 16, or even younger. If two teenagers made out on the wrong side of the street in Derby Line, they could face a mandatory thirty years in prison.

"Oh, but that's not what the law intends!" you say? Of course it's not. But the danger of law is not what it intends, but what it allows.

Income taxes were passed because they would only apply to "those people", not to "us regular people".

Gun control laws were passed because they would only apply to "those people", not to "us regular people".

Immigration restrictions were passed because they would only apply to "those people", not to "our kind of people".

Warrantless wiretaps and surveillance were accepted because they would only apply to "those people", not to "us regular people".

Laws defining "child pornography" to include toddlers in bathtubs were accepted because they would only apply to "those people", not to "us proud parents".

After any law passes, within a few years the intent of the law is forgotten, yet the letter remains. Eventually we all become "those people".

This law is accepted because it applies to grown men seeking sex from prepubescent children. How long until some parents are shocked to find that their 18 year old son has become one of "those people" for something that is perfectly legal both at home and in Canada, or Cancun?

Unintended consequences, indeed. 

Published Friday, March 02, 2007 2:14 AM by KBCraig

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

Mrs. Chili said:

Ah, yes - the old "letter vs. spirit" question.

This is why, deep down, I'm really a conservative (though I'm always called a lefty-humanist by people who call themselves conservative and, really?  The way conservatism has changed over the past twenty or so years?  I'm okay with that.... but I digress).  

I'm not sure that the best way to handle ANYTHING is to pass a new law.  Look, I'm a parent and a teacher.  I have classroom policies.  The thing is, I try to have as FEW classroom policies as possible for JUST the reasons you describe here.  How far does a policy extend?  How can a law be interpreted?  Does that apply to ME, even though I'm not TECHNICALLY doing what the law or policy prohibits, but am acting in a way that's consistent with the behavior the law or policy was intended to prevent?  My children are aware of this, even.  They'll try to nab a lollipop after being told that they can't have a chocolate bar....

It's a slippery, dangerous slope, all right; and smarter people than I haven't been yet able to figure it all out....

March 2, 2007 2:01 PM
 

AndyThePug said:

Exactly, and the solution isn't to try and make the letter of the law be so precisely detailed as to cover every possible situation, either. You end up with unwieldy, thousand-page laws that then give that are even more rigid than what you had before. The law can't foresee every possible situation, particularly not with the morons we have writing the law. That's why, particularly in criminal cases, the law should simply set broad guidlines within which the criminal justice system can exercise its discretion on a case by case basis.

The ideal solution, as you said, is not to have a law at all unless strictly necessary. Most of the strictly necessary laws are already in place.

A good intermediate step would be to remove mandatory sentences. The same way I'd rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to jail, I'd rather see a man who should spend the rest of his life in prison receive a light sentence than see a man who commited a minor crime have his life ruined because of the judge's hands being tied.

March 5, 2007 8:52 PM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 
Submit

This Blog


  Print This Page  |  Email This Page  |  Make Us Your Homepage!
User Agreement  |  Privacy Policy  |  © 2006 The Union Leader Corporation  |  Powered by SilverTech