26 ms·

>If you did commit a crime, we want to convict you. There are too many bad laws out there. If I meet a bad guy, I can defend myself. If I cross the governmen

>If you did commit a crime, we want to convict you. There are too many bad laws out there. If I meet a bad guy, I can defend myself. If I cross the government, I'm doomed. I much rather support things that increase my likelihood of meeting a bad guy that I can defend myself against while reducing my ability to cross the government and being doomed without recourse. This is the whole reason I justify that it is better to let 99 guilty go free than to jail 1 innocent (assuming the government doesn't also take away my ability to defend myself, which it does seem intent on doing).

BWStearns 11y ago
It is unjust to jail Rick for jay walking and ignore that Morty jay walks. A system of partial enforcement is not intrinsically more just because we haven't jailed Morty. It's actually unjust because if Morty is free to jay walk then how can we justify locking up Rick if jay walking is the crime? We probably just like Rick less. Partial enforcement is a practical reality because we're willing to accept the injustice of partial enforcement rather than live in an Orwellian police state (a decision I'm thrilled with!). > There are too many bad laws out there. That's the point! If bad laws stay on the books and aren't generally enforced then they can be enforced capriciously as punitive weapons by government officials. If bad laws are fully enforced, they won't stay on the books for very long. This is why it is in the best interest of a society to have as high an enforcement rate as possible before increasing false positives. It discourages bad laws from existing in the first place and surviving in the second.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Partial enforcement is a practical reality because we're willing to accept the injustice of partial enforcement rather than live in an Orwellian police state (a decision I'm thrilled with!). False dichotomy. If all laws are fully enforced, bad laws will soon be done away with by popular demand. If the government won't do so willingly, then they will be forced to do so by the people.
  - BWStearns 11y ago
    Can you clarify? I just said that bad laws would go away with full enforcement, which is the core of why it is good for a society to enforce its laws evenly and thoroughly. I don't think there's any false dichotomy produced by simultaneously noting that on a practical level you will never achieve literally 100% enforcement of laws without some serious damage to civil liberties which is why we err on the side of partial enforcement as the lesser of two evils. Edit: Is the issue is the use of the phrase "accept the injustice of partial enforcement"? I was trying to communicate that there is some injustice in not fully applying the law (the fact that some murderers go untried is unjust for instance). However we're willing to accept that because getting literally 100% enforcement would require things we don't want. When I say full enforcement as something to aspire to I'm not suggesting literally 100%, I'm referring to the way we roughly fully enforce murder laws and do not fully enforce drug laws. One of those crimes (more or less) gets treated as a crime regardless of who commits it, the other does not. I don't think we'd tolerate drug laws as they are if they were enforced with the same degree of universality as murder laws.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >I don't think there's any false dichotomy produced by simultaneously noting that on a practical level you will never achieve literally 100% enforcement of laws without some serious damage to civil liberties which is why we err on the side of partial enforcement as the lesser of two evils. My point being there is the third option that the laws will be removed. And it seems like in part of your post you agree with this, but in part of your post you act like this isn't an option. I'm kinda confused in that regard.
      - BWStearns 11y ago
        Sorry, I specifically pointing to Orwellian nightmare a false option. It's like Cake or Death? Cake's really the only thing people are going to pick.

BWStearns 11y ago

It is unjust to jail Rick for jay walking and ignore that Morty jay walks. A system of partial enforcement is not intrinsically more just because we haven't jailed Morty. It's actually unjust because if Morty is free to jay walk then how can we justify locking up Rick if jay walking is the crime? We probably just like Rick less. Partial enforcement is a practical reality because we're willing to accept the injustice of partial enforcement rather than live in an Orwellian police state (a decision I'm thrilled with!). > There are too many bad laws out there. That's the point! If bad laws stay on the books and aren't generally enforced then they can be enforced capriciously as punitive weapons by government officials. If bad laws are fully enforced, they won't stay on the books for very long. This is why it is in the best interest of a society to have as high an enforcement rate as possible before increasing false positives. It discourages bad laws from existing in the first place and surviving in the second.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Partial enforcement is a practical reality because we're willing to accept the injustice of partial enforcement rather than live in an Orwellian police state (a decision I'm thrilled with!). False dichotomy. If all laws are fully enforced, bad laws will soon be done away with by popular demand. If the government won't do so willingly, then they will be forced to do so by the people.
- BWStearns 11y ago
  Can you clarify? I just said that bad laws would go away with full enforcement, which is the core of why it is good for a society to enforce its laws evenly and thoroughly. I don't think there's any false dichotomy produced by simultaneously noting that on a practical level you will never achieve literally 100% enforcement of laws without some serious damage to civil liberties which is why we err on the side of partial enforcement as the lesser of two evils. Edit: Is the issue is the use of the phrase "accept the injustice of partial enforcement"? I was trying to communicate that there is some injustice in not fully applying the law (the fact that some murderers go untried is unjust for instance). However we're willing to accept that because getting literally 100% enforcement would require things we don't want. When I say full enforcement as something to aspire to I'm not suggesting literally 100%, I'm referring to the way we roughly fully enforce murder laws and do not fully enforce drug laws. One of those crimes (more or less) gets treated as a crime regardless of who commits it, the other does not. I don't think we'd tolerate drug laws as they are if they were enforced with the same degree of universality as murder laws.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >I don't think there's any false dichotomy produced by simultaneously noting that on a practical level you will never achieve literally 100% enforcement of laws without some serious damage to civil liberties which is why we err on the side of partial enforcement as the lesser of two evils. My point being there is the third option that the laws will be removed. And it seems like in part of your post you agree with this, but in part of your post you act like this isn't an option. I'm kinda confused in that regard.
    - BWStearns 11y ago
      Sorry, I specifically pointing to Orwellian nightmare a false option. It's like Cake or Death? Cake's really the only thing people are going to pick.