Re: Selective Enforcement Not True

[Daniel Kronemann <kron4155@uidaho.edu>]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, John Guyer wrote:

> It has been bantered around that the council favors selective
> enforcement with the public nudity ordinance amendments.  This is one
> of the reasons that is being cited to oppose the ordinance.
>
> While I cannot speak for the council, I can say that I believe that to
> be completely false.  Laws are crafted to be clear.  This law is no
> different than others in that regard.

Laws are only as clear as possible the human beings, who aren't
perfect, who write them can be clear.  Laws aren't inherently clear.  How
could they be?  With so many different people in the world with so many
view points that could interpret things differently.  You always here of
judges interpretation of laws, for example.  Laws are inherently unclear,
if anything, which can be good, to give room for flexibility.

I'm unsure of other people's opposition to the new ordinance, but I can
say for my own opposition, I find the biased nature of the law itself more
of a problem than any perspective biased enforcement of it.  I also find
the law incredibly clear.  You are punishing women for showing their
breasts but you allow men to show their breasts.  It is really very clear.
Prehaps you think it would be easier to give a citation or arrest the few
women who actually would take advantage of such freedom than to do the
same for all the men who take such freedom for granted.  Or maybe there
are more misogynistic motives.  Maybe you hate women for reminding you of
what you deem impure (ie your sexuality) that you create a law against
those women who refuse to adjust to your objectifying, eroticizing of
female body part.  The interpretations of your motives are many.  The law
is clear, your motives are not.

> Someone that parks their utility trailer or boat on the street without
> having it connected to a vehicle has committed a misdemeanor.  The
> maximum penalty for leaving your trailer in the street is the same as
> that for violating the Public Nudity ordinance.  This "trailer law"
> has intent with it that the entire system (officers, attorneys, and
> judges) utilizes in making decisions about how to justly deal with the
> offense. Did they mean 10 minutes while they switch vehicles?  Did
> they mean overnight while waiting to take it out?  Did they mean all
> the way in the street, or just partially in the street?

Maybe that law should be more clear.  How much time would be needed to
switch vehicles?  Specify it.  Is the law meant to accomidate for
overnight?  How far into the street is defined as being in the street?
That would not be hard to specify.  Of course you can't think of every
situation and circumstance, which then requires discretion.  But you
obvious thought of these, so why not specify it?

> I cannot believe you want a rigid response to every offense.  Where is
> the community served in that?

Just consistant, just,  and equal for everyone.

Daniel