The end of the year is a traditional time to think about “out with the old and in with the new.” As I’m not a legislator at any level, I don’t get to participate much in outing old laws or inning new ones — though maybe someday I’ll try a case at the Court of Appeals that does something like that. That said, there’s nothing wrong with speculating a bit — that First Amendment is still generally working — so let’s think a bit about some laws that could possibly vanish — or change — without destroying the fabric of society (or the universe) as we know it. These are just opinions, though, and the fact that I think that something could change doesn’t mean that police or the courts will stop enforcing it, at least until it does change.

Easily, the top of my list is Failure To Obey Traffic Control Device — Stop Sign. After more than two decades of living in Oregon, I have come to the conclusion that people here view stop signs as a quaint suggestion, not an actual rule. For the most part, the only times I see drivers stop at stop signs are when either there is a police officer present, or when there is cross traffic that would get in the way. I have yet to see an awesome ballet of four right turns not quite stopping at the same time, but I’ve seen doubles and triples. So maybe it’s time to adjust the rule on stop signs to “a vehicle coming to a stop sign may proceed cautiously through an intersection marked by a stop sign if there is no other vehicle with a superior right of way either approaching or in the intersection.” It would not surprise me, though, that what is now done at a very slow walk suddenly becomes a fast jog, changing defenses from “I did stop!” to “I was proceeding cautiously!” Worth a try, though.

Another area we could probably give up on is this whole ridiculous “driver’s card” idea. Washington State, as best I can tell, simply issues drivers licenses to all and sundry, and it does not appear that either the economy or the social structure up there has collapsed into a heap of flaming rubble by so doing. Demonstrate residency in the state, take the test, pay for the license and off you go. Because that would then remove all excuses for the next bit, which is a digression from the “law-less” theme here.

Driving uninsured, first offense, should become a C misdemeanor, and, while I’m not keen on the idea of removing judges’ discretion, I’d even be willing to consider ramping up the category (second offense is a B misdemeanor, third offense, an A misdemeanor) and mandatory jail sentences for second and subsequent offenses. Second offense Driving While Suspended could also be treated the same way. Familiarity breeds contempt, as the old saying goes, and our familiarity with automobiles and trucks leads to forgetting that they are pieces of heavy equipment moving at speed, and thus very dangerous. Licensing and insurance are mandatory for a reason, and lack thereof might need more severe penalties than we have.

Or, maybe, how about getting rid of everything and replacing it with “don’t hurt people, and don’t take their stuff.” If someone is injured or their stuff taken, any facts after that are simply mitigation or aggravation. It’d sure make for a lot smaller stack of laws for folks to think about.

But that’s just the law-less opinion of an opinionated guy. Share your law-less (or -more) opinions in response! Letters to the editor or by email to hermistonheraldoffthebench@gmail.com. Names of the terminally shy will be withheld on request.

— Thomas Creasing is a Herald columnist and municipal court judge