Comments on: I can already feel the crime rates falling

By: Stetson

Stetson — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:51:39 +0000

Actually this law isn’t as stupid as everyone thinks. in fact the reason they passed the law is so the way if someone messes with you or something you give them 24 hours and if they don’t stop you can beat the c$#p out of them. so long as you can prove you gave them the notice.

By: jack

jack — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:59:06 +0000

Anyone could have written that whats to say its true?

By: dre

dre — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:45:55 +0000

This is the “liberal” replacement for the 2nd Amendment.

By: Lady Pavarti

Lady Pavarti — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:47:37 +0000

*Crime…..My Bad

By: Lady Pavarti

Lady Pavarti — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:46:35 +0000

HAHA The rime Rates Would Only Fall Bc Everyones Too Busy Laughing Their A**** Off!

By: Dash

Dash — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:54:29 +0000

Exactly the point. Law isn’t supposed to be a game, or a puzzle that can be solved so that you get what you want while avoiding any consequences. The intent of such a law is to increase the cost of committing a crime to the point that no one will commit them at all.

By: Pyropuppy

Pyropuppy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:12:14 +0000

Not to mention that if you ARE actually stupid enough to provide advanced notice, you’ll be a) arrested by awaiting police, most likely, and b) charged with premeditated whatever the crime is. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!

By: 17R3W

17R3W — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:22:25 +0000

I disagree. If you commit two crimes you can be charged with two crimes and it not be double Jeopardy.

For example, if I break into someones house and steal something, that’s 2 crimes (one count of B&E, one count of theft).

Even though the theft depended on the B&E, they are two separate charges.

This happens a lot with career criminals, they’ll often get charged with a list of crimes, meaning a higher chance of conviction.

By the way, if you want to get around Double Jeopardy, then you go to civil court.

By: Someone

Someone — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:29:57 +0000

It’s a clever way of getting around double jeopardy laws. See, at least in most English speaking countries, you can’t be charged for the same crime twice. But if failure to notify is a crime, well OJ might’ve gotten a couple of years in a second trial.

By: Selkceb

Selkceb — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:11:21 +0000

If I go through the process first,does that make it legal?

By: Dash

Dash — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:55:10 +0000

Following one law in the process of committing a crime does not make your actions legal. That’d be like saying that wearing your seatbelt while performing a drive-by shooting made the shooting legal.

I know absurd defenses are appealing to people, but people are really jumping to conclusions here.

By: Paranoia

Paranoia — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:31:33 +0000

If your crime becomes legal, why worry about the advance notice? I mean sure, they could prepare an escape route or an evacuation or something… but I don’t see where the problem lies. But as Daniel said, it’s more to provide an extra charge for crimes. Say for the average assault charge, you get 5 years. Well with this law, you also get charged with not providing extra notice, thus meaning you get 5 years from your assault charge AND 2 years from your “didn’t provide advance notice” charge.

By: Ashram

Ashram — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:20:34 +0000

Another law is that you must inform the police prior to committing a crime so an investigation can be conducted quickly afterward.

Just kidding, though, considering this little bit of news, who knows?

By: feverfew

feverfew — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:49:02 +0000

WOW YOU ARE SO SMART

By: nacho 205

nacho 205 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:54:53 +0000

Thats great 24 hours should be enough time to buy a gun if you dont already have one

By: haffri

haffri — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:35:45 +0000

I only fear it might not be that effective without some guild members eager to pursue justice.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:52:52 +0000

Processing fees as a form of surreptitious tax increase have been successfully challenged in California, so I imagine that they could also be successfully challenged as a form of surreptitious fine increase.

And, likewise, I don’t think that a law to effect cruel-and-unusual levels of punishment by requiring that criminals give advanced warning or somesuch would withstand a determined challenge.

Other than that, I have nothing to add to what you have said.

By: 3dpenguin

3dpenguin — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:27:43 +0000

Somebody’s been reading to many DiscWorld books.

By: what

what — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:25:38 +0000

If it became legal, then it’d no longer be a crime, which means it’d no longer require advance notice… PARADOX!

By: amethyst

amethyst — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:07:43 +0000

This does have a Discworld flavor. Does anyone know where this is from, anyway?

By: dolt

dolt — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:51:58 +0000

in 24 hours time i will be coommiting an act of careless driving and will accidently run you over

PS this sounds like somthing out of a prattchett novel

By: Jess

Jess — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:08:55 +0000

GREAT! Gives me time to load up my gun.

By: malfeasant

malfeasant — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:29:52 +0000

no, but it makes the victim an accomplice

By: yoddel

yoddel — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:58:20 +0000

Best thing

By: Actual Soldier

Actual Soldier — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:09:21 +0000

“A recently passed anticrime law requires law-abiding citizens to disarm themselves so they will be easier targets for criminals.”

Sadly, true. I couldn’t make this up, thank your politicians.

By: Nubcake

Nubcake — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:34:47 +0000

Why don’t they just use the key?

By: Geekoid

Geekoid — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:30:48 +0000

It’s not brilliant, it just leaves away for a civil court in the event the accused is actually shown to be innocent in court.

Its a shame and an abuse.

By: Bharat

Bharat — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:50:16 +0000

It’s not raping either, if you use a key

By: random

random — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:32:02 +0000

wow, i feel real safe now

By: itsDBKyall

itsDBKyall — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:44:01 +0000

Dear Mrs. Stevenson
im here to inform you of my multiple counts of Larson, burglary, and theft (i like being through), slander, loitering, arson, assault with a non deadly weapon, treason, and 4 counts of vehicular manslaughter to occur in 24 hours. Please enjoy yourself in the (6:41) meantime and have a nice day.
(cue heartattack)
sooooo if she is dead who is goin to tattle to the po po

By: bazuuu

bazuuu — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:27:51 +0000

you all fail :/

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:00:11 +0000

DAMN them! How dare they not make crimes illegal! It saddens me that we have so MANY legal crimes… makes you wonder what is wrong with our society… (this was all sarcastic, fyi)

By: Matai

Matai — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:16 +0000

It’s not breaking in if you use a key, Dave.

By: Sally

Sally — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:26:18 +0000

well, i feel better already!

By: teh cat

teh cat — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:38:14 +0000

you forgot to put the time and the place
like:

“Hello, I, [name] will rape you and then murder you in your kitchen at 8:16 pm”
“Oh, looks like i need to hurry, i still need to buy some pickles at the wallmart”

By: Steven

Steven — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:56:33 +0000

No kidding!
“Hello, I’m [name] and I will rape you and then murder you.”
“Oh, that’s nice. At least I know it’s coming.”

By: Sara Pulis

Sara Pulis — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:36:18 +0000

This sounds like a translation of the law for Japanese mysterious thieves (怪盗).

By: No Lawyer I

No Lawyer I — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:34:15 +0000

The fail here is the paper or website that printed this well established hoax yet again and all you jerks who believe it. It is fiction. Get over it )

By: russ

russ — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:58:11 +0000

Besides, then they’ll nail you for failing to properly prove that you properly notified… same tactic is currently used in normal notification procedure.

By: russ

russ — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:50:58 +0000

Well, that’s apparently how the drafters of this law saw it… right?

By: russ

russ — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:48:46 +0000

No, no… that would be ‘unconstitutional’ *wink*

They’ve done things like adding an assessment fee to the base fine for things like traffic tickets (another form of criminal law) in California to try and get around constitutional problems with ‘excessive fines’. There, the base fine is still only around $45… that’s right, a special offer, only $40!!!,,, but the penalty assessment fee is 140% the base fine, so your actual monetary exchange is….$108. Eh, hem, and since penalty assessment isn’t anything other than a processing fee, (and not a fine) it is all constitutionally just okey dokey!

Traffic law comes under the same house as criminal law, only that traffic is infraction based.

So, hitting you with another law that you’ve automatically broken means yet one more cleaver way to get around that darned old out-dated constitution. (being sarcastic, by the way)

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:49:01 +0000

Why not instead just increase penalties across all crimes, then?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:47:52 +0000

It’s operationally equivalent to increasing penalties by some fixed amount across all crimes, which could have been done instead.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:44:27 +0000

What it really does is add an additional charge in the case of each crime — unless, as the Joker often did, the perpetrator gives the victim advanced warning.

By: wowaname

wowaname — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:51:35 +0000

reply fail

By: stef

stef — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:45:54 +0000

Man I was hoping the ice would crack! Not so he died but just a small refleshment would have been nice!

By: stef

stef — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:42:08 +0000

So wait, if I kill someone and don’t tell him 24 hours before then I’m getting more years in prison because I didn’t note him?
Framing someone for murder just got a little more interesting..

By: Philip

Philip — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:53:38 +0000

This is actually quite a bad law, not even counting the fact that it makes no sense.

If someone is caught, they will obviously not have notified the victim. This means that whatever the crime, people will have committed one extra crime, which would be punished independently. That means the difference between crimes becomes less, because all crimes are treated harshly. That in turn would lead to criminals preforming more violent crimes, because they aren’t as much worse as other crimes.
So by enforcing this anti-crime law, police officers will decrease petty crimes, at the cost of increasing the amount of larger crimes.

By: Real

Real — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:14:54 +0000

Its real, its OLD been around for YEARS so its not something recently passed. And its a Texas law, not something thats taken as an excuse in court tho but it was written as a real law.

By: tmade6

tmade6 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:13:53 +0000

hey this is ur neighborhood rapist im just calling to say that im going to rape u at 3:30 tomarrow morning. if this time doesnt work for u pls call me back to reschudule.