Why dont laws protect people?
551508
Laws don't protect people.  They are not designed as a preventative measure.  Instead, they are designed as a deterrent and spell out the measures that will be taken against anyone who perpetrates a crime.   The concept is, inform people of those actions deemed by society as unacceptable and the people will not engage in those activities.  It works for most of society.\n\nAddressing it another way, the law is “reactive” not “proactive“.   It only becomes active after an offence has been committed, and another victim created. \n\nTo be anything else would constitute prior restraint.  We could lock everyone up and prevent crime that way.  But that is unfair, impractical, and it would never work in America.  You do find this type of action being taken in some countries around the world.  Recipients of this type treatment are often referred to as "political prisoners".  Their incarceration by a government is intended as a preemptive measure.  The idea is to find a individual or group perceived to be a threat and conduct a preemptive strike by locking them away before they can commit a crime.  \n\nThis sort of thing occurred in the US during WWI when legislation was passed that denied American citizens the right to criticize the government or it's war efforts.  The idea was to control vocal groups before they could be heard both here and in the enemy's camp.  \n\nWWII saw a similar activity when Japanese Americans were interned in camps away from the coast.  The concern was, where did the true loyalty of Japanese Americans lie.  The government felt Japanese Americans loyalty could easily lie with Japan even if the people had earned citizenship and had sworn allegiance to the United States.  Most of these families lost everything, their land, personal property, and any other holdings.  Some restitution was paid but many never recovered even a small percentage of their losses.  In my opinion the only thing good that came of this was that during WWII we didn't experience the wholesale execution of Japanese Americans.  While it was never tested, I believe feelings against the Japanese ran so high that many white Americans may have acted as vigilantes if the opportunity would have presented itself.  This action could have cost thousands of Japanese American lives right here in the USA.\n\nAnother aspect of our justice system in "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".  This brings home the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".  Typically the state has more resources than the defendant so the burden placed on the state is higher than on the defense.  All a defense attorney has to do is introduce a reasonable doubt in one juror and the result is a mistrial.  While the state must convince each and every juror "beyond a reasonable doubt" of the guilt of the defendant.\n\nI hope this helps, I tend to get a bit long sometimes but you can weed out anything you don’t want to use.
454755
As long as there are conflicting interest between individual impulses and the overall needs of the community, there will be laws. Laws set boundaries so that people can interact positively, causing minimum damage to each other. Whether it's following traffic laws (e.g. who gets to go first, where each car can drive in what direction, etc. to avoid accidents) to international trade (how much different currencies are worth, how much has to be paid for items, etc.), it is all about creating a benefit for the overall community so that we all can have better lives.
706612
I think first you should get it right and say Laws since they are Laws not just Policies. The fact that they are laws yes they should be enforced. Laws are made to be enforced whether good or bad and to allow people to break them makes a mockery out of the entire legal system. If we don't enforce laws designed to make us a soveriegn nation and keep us safe in general then why should we enforce any laws?
1110598
Many United State citizens are not putting up with the loss of freedoms.  Just witness the ongoing issue with telephone monitoring by the U.S. government and the response to this.  We want to feel safe yet at the same time want to be free to do what we will and say what we want.  As far as turning into a police state I still do not get stopped by law enforcement to check my papers.  I do not have to pass through checkpoints when driving to work.  I want to travel to another state I do not have to clear this decision with any form of legal authority.  We are far from a police state.
1070163
There are already laws to protect our personal data,  just lack enforcement,  no need for new laws that won't be inforced either.\n\nIt is merley political posturing after the large amount of info that has been stolen,  no new law would have stoped those from happening, since the cause was poor supervision of the rules already in force
420978
Law- to provide a acceptable outcome to the majority. It can not sit well with the minority. \n\nEither way some people lose.
673398
The law is a constitution which regulates the do's and don'ts in a society and the people who are to obey this rules and regulation are to be aware of such laws. Every society has its own laws like the church, States, Country, Tradition etc. These various groups set out laws to guide the conduct of the people to prevent them from going astray. It's some how related to Godly manner in as much as it guides the moral standards of the people.
225501
sex offence laws have been put in place to protect people from sick individuals who prey on others.but those laws can also be used as a lethal weapon against innocent victims by spiteful nasty people. in today's world it does not matter any more who is write or wrong evidence in numbers and in the case of sex offences with only the accused and the alleged victim sadly most courts will sympathise with the victim. hopefully some day this sort of thing will not happen and those who deserve to be punished will get what they deserve
1085074
Well they don't represent God in this issue. God made laws to protect his people. They need some reading time.\n\n\nNotice the hush on this post.--unbelievable
446204
In a ideal situation we should remove the laws that restrict posession by law abiding citizens.\n\nBut more importantly...\n\nENFORCE the laws we already have.
1153330
The legal system is not solely devoted to protecting individual rights.  It also regulates privileges, agencies, corporations, etc.\n\nWhich right of law-abiding citizens personal peace and security is being violated by the American legal system that you are referring to?  This question is too vague.
321130
Government does not protect business, it takes resources away from businesses and gives them away to non-business entities.  Businesses must protect themselves from Government.
230997
i believe in certain situations it would be permissable. for example, if what somebody is doing affects another person or group in a negative way then the government should be allowed to step in. the government works for us as a whole, not each individual person. we are allowed certain freedoms and to do most things the way we want to but there are limits on everything. if protecting society by limiting one person's freedoms is the best plan of action then the government should have every right to do so
1039835
The POLICE are doing a job to protect us law abiding citizens from people who have no regard for the law or other people.  Only people who should be worried when talking to them are criminals or people with something to hide.
548150
I wasn't there to know. but I think that Safety and health are created by God. So he doesn't need to work by their laws. because with out him there wouldn't be any thing to put laws into
804868
They don't protect the bad guys. They arrest them. They protect the witnesses and the victims.
222824
Because Federal Law is above state law.  States can not create laws that conflict with the constitution.