Sunday, July 15, 2007

Stunning cost and infuriating application of law raise Constitutional, fairness concerns

The law has been criticized because the cost to the lawbreaker is "stunning," punishment is non-negotiable and cannot be modified by a judge, and application of the law is unequal and "infuriating."

The stated reason for the law is to address a group of lawbreakers who have become an economic burden to the government.

Civil rights organizations invoke the U.S. Constitution when they decry the "undue, extreme and discriminatory punishments" on the lawbreakers.

The executive branch reports receiving complaints about "inequities in the law," hinting at the need for legislative reform.

Some people react (among them are likely lawbreakers and sympathizers with the lawbreakers):
“I feel like [it] is a little too much”

"I don’t think [the lawbreakers] are the problem, but I don’t know that [one of the potential punishments] is the best way to go."

“That’s BS, why can’t anybody that’s [potentially breaking the law] get the same treatment?”

"I think it’s a little harsh and out of my [ability to comply with the punishment]"
Would you want the law changed?

Or is it good enough as is, because we are a "nation of laws"?

Before you decide, none of the above has anything to do with the immigration bureaucracy.

The law is a new statute that allows $3000 speeding tickets for going over 80 MPH in Virginia (stories here, here, and here).

Can the same reactions Virginians have to the $3000 speeding ticket be applied to immigration law? What kind of rules do expect our laws to follow (reasonable punishment, equal application, etc.)?

No comments: