| From: | Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Legality Ratings (a bit long) |
| Date: | Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:10:08 -0400 |
>> Erik Jameson said on 12:27/14 Apr 98...
>>
>> > > International Man of Mystery
>> >
>> > Well, Austin
>>
>> Finally, someone got the reference :)
I'm suprised no one else has mentioned it earlier, baby! Yeah!
>Wierd analogy. Its kinda like the current ban on "assualt" rifles here.
>In the publics eye, they are only used to comment a criminal offense.
>You wouldn't want one for any other reason. A datajack may be used by
>everday folks (ala I own a pistol), but the only reason to have the eye
>datajack is to sneak into places and steal stuff. I don't agree with,
>but that may be the thinking behind it.
That's exactly it. There are certain items in the world that really only
people wanting to commit crimes would own (or at least that is the reasoning).
I can go down to the local shop that supplies me with both my paintball and
boxing needs and buy some seriously lethal knives that may not be totally
legal. Or buy lockpicking equipment! I don't know if it's illegal to own
lockpicking gear (I think without a license it is), but it's sure illegal
to own one in the commission of a crime *even if they weren't used!*
Again, if I own lockpicks, leave them at home, go rob a 7-11 and get
caught, when the police search my house, they'll find the lockpicks and hit
me for those also.
The reasoning with assault weapons being illegal is that they have no
purpose other than to kill large numbers of people in a small amount of
time. Hunters don't need burst fire; if a hunter has to shoot a deer or
whatever more than once, he fucked up. Burst fire isn't legitimate for
self-defense either. Automatic gunfire is seen as something strictly
military and paramilitary (i.e. SWAT teams). No legitimate reason for
civilians to own these sorts of weapons (and no, let's not debate whether
or not this is true, a right, or whatever).
The same reasoning applies to eye port datajacks (like MC23, I don't really
see the point other than some people might think it's cool). A legitimate
computer user or simsense customer needs only the common datajack, they
don't need to hide the datajack. A criminal, on the other hand, might find
hiding a datajack useful (which, again, a civilian wouldn't). And so we
have a legal code that says that merely owning a eye port datajack isn't
illegal (though Lone Star might not treat you too kindly if they spot it),
but if you use it, you're up a creek because you surely must be committing
a crime. In addition to all the other laws you've broken, you can add
illegal usage of controlled cyberware; and note that it would be extremely
rare to be hauled in for the datajack, it would be an add-on charge
supplementary to the big laws that you broke.
In a lot of cases, these sorts of oddities of the US/UCAS law are intended
to make sure the criminal gets punished. By adding on all the smaller,
ticky-tacky criminal charges, the prosection and the state can make sure
that my prison stay will be longer. Murder One rates something like 20
years; much less with good behavior. But if you add on assault weapon
charges, intent to use said assault weapon, ownership of an illegal weapon,
use of an illegal weapon in the commission of a crime, etc., you can push
the jail time upwards, and actually make the criminal do more jail time
(like the real sentence for murder, even with good behavior). It's a
legalistic way of "getting tough" on crime that also makes the politicians
that enact the laws look good by "fighting crime."
It doesn't always make sense.
We all have laws and legal practices that stike us as odd; I for one find
some of the European laws against mace/pepper spray ridiculous. That makes
as little sense to me as the legal hair-splitting caused by Intent v. Use
that confuses many people (but seems to be a lot of non-Americans) and is
reflected in Shadowrun.
That's life and that's the laws on the books right now. Work to change
them or accept them.
Erik J.
"What was that popping sound?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
