"Civil rights as individual rights. Society has a right also. The right to live in some location wherever it is and expect Law and Order."
--- I happen to define "Law and Order" as the result of fighting crime that has VICTIMS. "Society" is the government. It doesn't have rights. By its size, it has inherent power. It has curtailment on this power by virtue of the rights set forth in those shredded strips we call the constitution.
"Just recently, I was conversing with a group of people and the topic came up about domestic abuse.
The new ruling is if the battered spouse is not going to complain there is no crime.
Come on, at some point the fact that the individual does not make a complaint, society has to stand up and say that is wrong do something about it.
Perfect example is the OJ case and his on going abuse of his wife and the end result.
So laws are established to prevent that abuse and then some slick lawyer will circumvent it, because someone has enough money, or a civil rights violation is there.
Then lawyers get involved for the notoriety, favorable or unfavorable, does not matter, it is exposure they want and need for their cause. Quite a bit of the time, it is for Justice "one and for all".
I know corny, but it really is a Justice issue. "
--- First, in a real domestic violence situation, there IS a victim, only the victim is often afraid to complain. The problem with the way domestic violence has been handled in the past (it's changing some now) is that instead of police/courts bothering to use JUDGMENT, they make stupid rules like "in any DV call, somebody gets arrested". DV cases are full of variety. Judgment is called for. That is where the problem lies. I'm all for vigorous prosecution of DV cases. That's because there IS A VICTIM.
Second, I don't know what "new ruling" you are referring to.
"As far as the reason for my thoughts. These are some.
I feel arguement for the sake of arguement, has something to do with it."
--- Are you trying to say you are arguing for the sake of argument? Or are you saying that people who don't want the extra aggravation when buying Sudafed while they have a major headache are arguing only for the sake of argument?
"To take sudafed off the public shelf and have to sign for it is just good responsibility, as far as I am concerned.
Same with a pistol and rifle. "
--- Do you have to sign for ammunition where you live? I sure don't. I don't have to register my gun, either. If ANY person steps into a firearms dealer shop and wants a gun, he must agree to a background check. Then, unless he's got a CCL, he has to wait 3 days to get the gun, unless he's trading another working gun for it. Florida law says, however, that NO RECORD CAN BE KEPT of that transaction.
When you sign for a Schedule V drug, a record is kept. I know this because I have done it before for Phenergan with Codeine in Michigan. That's what's being proposed for Sudafed. Where does that record go? Hell if I know. Suppose some idiot doesn't like me and decides to call the police saying I have meth in my house. Now suppose the police decide to investigate and find that record. Might this not cause me to be awakened in the night by my door being busted down by SWAT?
Another proposal I've heard is that Sudafed be made Schedule II. Um. The meth being made with it is SCHEDULE III, unless it's in injectable solution form. Now that is the height of ridiculousness and clearly demonstrates the "reefer madness" that's going on.
As much as I support the 2nd (and all) amendments, it is a fact that my gun and ammo are more dangerous than Sudafed. In my hands, they're both safe. But if any of that stuff gets stolen, the gun&ammo are more dangerous hands down.
And being MADE to sign for something isn't responsibility. It's being nannied. Buying a thing and using it responsibly is responsibility.
"If you have given up your rights and not complain about beating or abuse, that person can not be considered to be looking out for society either."
--- I think you just said that somebody who's being abused and doesn't complain is guilty of neglecting society. While you are technically correct, I have to wonder if you have ever been in a DV situation. I have. It takes a lot to complain. While I was complaining, I met several people at the courthouse who were also complaining. They had small kids to protect, unlike me. As bad as it was for me, I was glad I wasn't them. The last thing an abused spouse or partner needs is to be plastered with guilt for not protecting society.
"When is a lie ok? When is it not? Complicated issue where I think you are going. Can't say it all without some more input from others."
--- I'm not sure I know what lie you are talking about. But I can say a little about the absoluteness of the right and wrong of lying.
Let's say your daughter has an dangerously abusive boyfriend. She's gotten away from him, but he knows where you live. So, rather than living with you, she is staying with a relative. You know where she is.
The boyfriend calls you and asks you if you know where she is staying. You lie, saying you do not.
Is that a good lie, or a bad one?
Or let's say you are a soldier and are captured by the enemy. You happen to know a critical encryption key. You are asked what the key is. What is better? Lie and give them the wrong key? Lie and say you do not know? Tell the truth and risk being tortured so badly as to give away the key?
===========================
Maybe I've misinterpreted, but it looks to me like you are trying to somehow say that if I can call drug use a victimless crime, then you can call domestic violence a victimless crime. Or maybe you are trying to say that calling drug use a victimless crime is a slippery slope and will lead to calling domestic abuse a victimless crime. I can't tell.
But these two things are very different. Domestic violence is assault and/or battery, and maybe worse. What makes it different from plain old assault/battery on a stranger is that the life of the victim is intertwined with that of the perpetrator and that makes it harder to complain. To say there's no victim there is patently absurd.
Drug abuse does not have a victim. You do it to yourself. Nobody is coercing you to refrain from filing charges against yourself. In and of itself, drug abuse is victimless.
If you want to call a drug abusing father who neglects his family due to drug abuse, then there's a crime you can charge without referring to the drug abuse. It's called neglect. And that crime DOES have a victim or victims. I have no problem with criminal charges against somebody who starts a family and then neglects to provide for them, whether that neglect is caused by drugs, alcohol, desertion, or whatever.
In fact, it is entirely possible that the secrecy surrounding drug abuse may help serve to hide real crimes like domestic violence and child neglect or abuse.
Suppose, for a moment, that you are a woman who married a fella who then turned out to be or become a meth addict. Let's say he's your only source of income, and the two of you have a 2-year-old child. You barely squeak by and really don't have any savings. Now let's say he has a mean streak that he would have had with or without meth.
Your house has little trinkets in nooks and crannies like meth-contaminated baggies and little contaminated straws to snort the meth with. And your husband gets a little out of hand on occasion and puts a little bruise on your 2-year-old.
What ya gonna do? You might decide that, given your situation, you'd rather not call DFS or report the abuse to the police. So a year goes by with maybe two or three of these incidents. So far, so good, right?
Then one fine day your husband gets very angry over something and severely injures your 3 year old. Breaks an arm. Scalds with hot coffee.
The fact that meth is illegal was probably a factor in your not reporting the earlier incidents.
