Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?

[Pyrrho]

...
How to drive, parking, braking, etc. are important laws to protect the rights of other motorists; wearing a seatbelt isn't, IMO.

If you are judged to be at fault in an accident (whether rightly or wrongly), the punishment you get will likely depend on whether the other person wore a seatbelt or helmet.  Do you think it is fair that one is punished differently based on what someone else does, that one has no control over?

Also, these things affect insurance rates, and that affects us all.  Do you think you have the right to drive up my insurance costs?  Basically, insurance will need to be higher if people are allowed to not wear seatbelts and helmets, because there will be greater injuries, and consequently greater expenses associated with accidents.  Consequently, insurance rates must be higher to cover that extra cost.  Frankly, I don't want to pay higher insurance rates because some moron does not want to wear a seatbelt or helmet, even though their head obviously has nothing in it worth protecting.

So we are talking about something that does have an impact on other people.  When you do something that impacts other people, shouldn't they have some say in the matter?


Since you seem to have a libertarian streak, remember, we are talking about laws regarding the use of public roads, not what people do on their own private property.  When you are on property that is not your own, you typically must conform to requirements of the owner of the property to remain there.  In this case, the owner of the property requires the use of seatbelts and helmets, or you are not allowed to drive there.

[rexbeccarox]

Like the non-seatbelt-wearing driver killing other motorists, if you can show me statistics of not wearing seatbelts or helmets affecting others, I'll change my stance. I agree that if something is to cause material harm to others, it should be illegal.

[Jenny A]

And changing the law may not be because we find an activity now acceptable, but rather an acknowledgment that prohibiting the activity actually causes the practice of the activity to rise, or creates so many other negative consequences that we'd rather put up with the activity than suffer the side affects of making illegal.

I don't see any circumstance when this would apply - If something is wrong/harmful/immoral to the extent it is illegal then I don't see reasons to legalise the behaviour - The fact we can drop crime rates with weed legalisation is a nice bonus, but the main argument is that drugs are a health concern/individual choice and not a criminal activity (consumption at least)

Not necessarily.  I know a whole number of people who disapprove of smoking marijuana, but voted to have it made legal in Oregon because legal smoking is safer and less crime ridden than illegal smoking.  But if asked they will still tell you using it is immoral.  --- I disagree, but that's not the point.

I'm not sure the results of that line of reasoning would always be for the best.  After all, you can't comply with regulations until they are passed.

Why?

Because if doing something is a human right, than facilitating that is to encouraged.  For example, if abortion is a human right (and I think it is) then the right is of no value unless someone is willing to perform an abortion.  So I think those who performed them before they were legal should not be held accountable after abortion is acknowledged to be a human right.

Similarly, white people who violated Jim Crow laws to serve blacks should not be held accountable.