Naming laws after victims of crime

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone else feel strongly about the US custom of naming laws after victims of crime? I'm saddened to see that India is now considering naming a law after the victim of the much-publicised gang-rape. If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about here's a list of such laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_le ... r_a_person

I can see a huge downside to this practice: a great danger that people will support the law out of positive emotion towards the victim. Needless to say, that is not a valid reason to support a law. They probably can't help but feel that by voting for or against the law they're voting for or against that sweet little girl who suffered so much! (And yes, it's almost always a girl.) This is nothing but a ploy by proponents of the law to stifle any rational debate about its merits. An additional, lesser downside is that referring to the law by a person's name provides less information - nobody can infer anything about the law from that name unless they're already familiar with it. And the upsides? I can't see any. I've heard it said that it "honours" the victim somehow, but there are plenty of things that could be named after them without such downsides - a library, a pond, a prison perhaps?

I agree. Laws should be based on reason, not reactionary emotion.

Detestation of a foul deed is "reactionary emotion"? That is interesting. When something vile and evil occurs we should just be calm and cool about it?

And dislike of rape is a mere reactionary emotion? How interesting.

ruveyn

Laws should have any names. It's just an emotional blackmail and Orwellian in nature. Like the Affordable Care Act that has caused out health insurance premiums to skyrocket.

@FMX:

Do you by chance read Radley Balko or Popehat? They've often discussed the phenomenon of terrible laws cloaked in the names of dead children.

I don't feel strongly about it but it is kind of strange. It makes it seem that the only accomplishment the victim had was being a victim. It does seem like a trick to get support for the laws too.

Why do you think that?

That's not what I mean and you should know that.

Actually, yeah. Detestation of a foul deed is the very definition of "reactionary emotion." Not that that's a bad thing.

And while we need not be calm and cool about it when some evil act is committed, our legal system should be.

Probably because he pays attention.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/24/d ... e-bad-laws
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/1 ... 93953.html
http://www.volokh.com/2011/07/11/politi ... ylees-law/

I think naming laws after victims is stupid. Also this is very common for bills related to sex crimes committed on children. Most of the bills are stupid too. They are based on emotions, not on the reason.

Your Wiki list left out "the Brady Bill" who was a crime victim, though not a little girl.

Is the practice peculiar to america?

I doubt it.

The British even named a war after a guy's bodypart- "the War of Jenkin's Ear".

And if the Justice System does not effectively combat this Evil, it's all right to kill!

No, I don't, but thanks for the links.



It's only a suspicion, of course, and I cannot prove it, nor would anyone ever admit it. But I think so, firstly, because it seems to serve their purpose very well - it redirects sympathy towards the victim into support for the law. This displaces any rational response people might have had to the law. Secondly, like I said, I cannot think of any other reason to do it. Dox47's links do a better job of explaining this problem than I could.

The response to the Indian gang-rape is unprecedented, at least in my memory. If a law is named after that victim it will be passed. Can you imagine the public outcry if it's not? Can you imagine being the political who has to announce that the law was rejected? The contents of that law are entirely irrelevant - for political reasons, it must be passed! That is a major problem, isn't it? (Similarly, for political reasons, the suspects must be hanged - any trial will be purely a show trial.)

I'm against naming laws after people.

I'm also against naming countries, landmarks, animals species, subatomic particles, scientific theories, neurological differences, diseases, cities, and pretty much anything that wasn't built to be a monument to a person after a person.

A name should describe the thing it's naming, not someone who was involved with it in some way at some time.

Yes, this means I'm not particularly a fan of the term "aspergers".

Or "America".

Amirigo's exploits will live on in the history books. He doesn't need two continents named after him.

https://twitter.com/david_m_wagner/stat ... 5441986560