Thursday, November 01, 2007

Retrospective changes are immoral.

I hate retrospective changes to any transaction. They are immoral, unjust and unfair.

Even in the law. As in my mind the law is a bargain with the population. We are effectively setting a cost for committing a crime. Exactly the same as we set a cost for a loaf of bread. Illegally evade taxes go to jail for up to 10 years, stab someone go to jail for up to 6 months, break into their houses and be forced to sign a piece of paper. As you can see the prices have been set by the government.

Now I believe that because the cost for crime, except evading taxes of any form, is now at an all time low plus they are now rarely caught. The criminal class see this as a risk worth paying and are on a shopping spree. Knowing that the cost to them is something that they have thought about and are willing to pay, if they are caught that is. Risk versus gain.

It seems to me that these laws have been put in place in the distant past by people that actually had an understanding of Justice and the Law. Not like the current clowns who tinker in a popularity contest regardless of Justice.

I even think retrospective changes in the laws are immoral and unjust even for cases like this. This guy is being pursued for compensation outside the legally set limit. Although it does tempt me to make an exception due to his crime the saying that extreme cases make bad law is right.

Now in a way to set the record straight. I do not think this limit should be extended anyway. A line has to be drawn somewhere. However in my Justice system this particular case would never have occurred because he would still be in jail. Most sentences would be increased, not retrospectively, and a new price set for crime. Way, way above inflation increases. Even ignoring our governments inflation rate and using the true inflation rate.


Post a Comment

<< Home