How many laws do we need?

[cwk]

Mon Ami Mate's posting about Clarkson's article got me thinking......

How many laws do we really need? Could fewer laws and a simplified legal system be "better"?

I reckon we could start with:
Don't murder (or kill or even hurt..(?) )
Don't commit rape
Don't steal
...er,that's it.

Which laws to we need to cover "real" crimes as opposed to laws against actions which aren't "bad"?

I know it sounds a bit like the 10 commandments but I don't think we need to worry about "coveting your neighbours ox" or whatever.

So, over to the wisdom of the PH collective.....

Charles

[lotuslad]

Don't do anything you wouldn't be willing to announce loudly down the pub

[Plotloss]

No victim, no crime.

[Eric Mc]

Most laws are subdivisions of very basic precepts - much like the ones you've already mentioned. Unfortunately, life is not simple so simple laws are actually unworkable. For a start, the law has to be broken down into two main areas - civil law and criminal law.

Criminal law deals with very basic issues - stealing, killing, assault etc etc

Civil laws deal with contracts, obligations, relationships - things like that.

One of the biggest problems of modern government thinking is thhat too many transgressions which once would have been considered civil law matters, are being recoded under criminal law.

[turbobloke]

cwk said:

how many laws do we need?

As few as possible. There should be a 'sunset clause' inserted in each parliamentary bill that becomes an act, specifying a sell-by date. The would give each law an automatic chance to be repealed if it's seen to eb bad law, not working, not needed etc. Any law not having said clause should be inserted into the PM, rectal fashion. They'd soon realise it's not nice when your world is full of pointless crap.

[MilnerR]

This country is full of hard working honest solicitors who are struggling to make ends meet and you heartless thoughtless individuals are talking about taking away their meagre livelihood. I hope you feel ashamed for having such a cavalier attitude to the selfless individuals who bicker about the pointless details of our most pointless laws!

[fer]

Plotloss said:

No victim, no crime.

So Matt, where did you bury your landlady's body?

[danhay]

If you ask me we need some sort of legislation to cut down the number of new laws.

[stumartin]

danhay said:

If you ask me we need some sort of legislation to cut down the number of new laws.

And of course for this we'd need extensive consultation that numerous Parliamentary committees and sub-committees could then ignore, a huge amount of Commons' time to 'debate' the issue, a further bit of legislation to stop the Lords blocking it and then reams upon reams of statutory instruments to 'interpret' and give flesh to the legislation by bringing in all the contentious bits that the Government knew would never have gotten past the first reading...

[lotuslad]

Have you been watching Yes Minister?

[Incorrigible]

fer said:

Plotloss said: No victim, no crime. So Matt, where did you bury your landlady's body?

That would be "can't find the victim, no crime"

[neil.b]

What?! Will nobody think of the poor solicitors...

[stumartin]

lotuslad said:

Have you been watching Yes Minister?

[mel]

"In this prison there are only 2 rules, 1. Don't write on the walls, 2. Obey all the rules"

[lotuslad]

A mate lent me a DVD of the first series the other day and it is utterly brilliant. Suggesting various committees reminded me of Sir Humphrey's wranglings

The best one was when Hacker tried to make cutbacks, to which Humphrey responded by employing 500 new civil servants to investigate the merits of making cutbacks.

[dnb]

I would find Yes Minister very funny if I didn't believe it was based on real life in the government...