3 ms·

Police officers can choose whether or not to enforce a law. Someone is driving 50 in a 35 mph zone. Police officer’s radar says it, the gun is calibrated, and

Police officers can choose whether or not to enforce a law. Someone is driving 50 in a 35 mph zone. Police officer’s radar says it, the gun is calibrated, and it’s illegal to do that. Police officer pulls that person over, then after a little chat, decided to let them go with a warning. Presumably the reason for letting someone go is because they feel the penalty imposed by the law is too stiff in this case. Okay, then how about we reduce the penalty? I guess I’ve always been confused why officers are allowed to do this, and unsure if this is wise.

ams6110 9y ago
That's still enforcing the law. Not enforcing the law would be witnessing the person driving 50 in a 35 zone and doing nothing.
VLM 9y ago
First five minutes of criminology 101 "Law Enforcement vs Policing" Law Enforcement means replacing that cop with a very small shell script hooked up to a red light camera style radar gun and a ticket printer. Policing is a somewhat more nuanced human task. With a side dish of the Peelian Principles that define the difference between an occupying military light infantry force and a police force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles So Peelian interpretation #2 its a speed trap intentional or unintentional Peelian principle #4 if the cop was in anyway legitimately disrespectful the ticket should not be written. Peelian principle #6 there is a diversity in humanity such that the law (aside from mandatory minimums) has always specified "up to". Its a very medical doctor Hippocratic oath like outlook of first do no harm, do the minimum necessary act to get the result. Peelian principle #9 realistically there is no way to prevent speeding while driving the pregnant wife in labor to the ER, so why bother with a retributive ticket? Turn on the lights and escort them to make it safer, maybe. On the other hand business as usual idiot woke up late trying to speed to work to catch up, that can be permanently cured by a retributive ticket. Principle 9 is the logic behind how we treat medically impaired driving ; intentionally getting drunk equals ticket, having a heart attack means no ticket, although in an authoritarian law enforcement philosophy both are equally hazardous driving situation for the general public. To some extent pot legalization is a classic law enforcement vs policing argument. By Peelian principles individual use while not endangering the public should never, ever, be enforced anyway regardless of law. By definition MJ can't be a hazard to yourself or the public as long as you're not driving or operating heavy machinery, so its simply not a police issue. Kinda like how some people argue immigration law enforcement is not a Peelian police issue.

ams6110 9y ago

That's still enforcing the law. Not enforcing the law would be witnessing the person driving 50 in a 35 zone and doing nothing.

VLM 9y ago

First five minutes of criminology 101 "Law Enforcement vs Policing" Law Enforcement means replacing that cop with a very small shell script hooked up to a red light camera style radar gun and a ticket printer. Policing is a somewhat more nuanced human task. With a side dish of the Peelian Principles that define the difference between an occupying military light infantry force and a police force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles So Peelian interpretation #2 its a speed trap intentional or unintentional Peelian principle #4 if the cop was in anyway legitimately disrespectful the ticket should not be written. Peelian principle #6 there is a diversity in humanity such that the law (aside from mandatory minimums) has always specified "up to". Its a very medical doctor Hippocratic oath like outlook of first do no harm, do the minimum necessary act to get the result. Peelian principle #9 realistically there is no way to prevent speeding while driving the pregnant wife in labor to the ER, so why bother with a retributive ticket? Turn on the lights and escort them to make it safer, maybe. On the other hand business as usual idiot woke up late trying to speed to work to catch up, that can be permanently cured by a retributive ticket. Principle 9 is the logic behind how we treat medically impaired driving ; intentionally getting drunk equals ticket, having a heart attack means no ticket, although in an authoritarian law enforcement philosophy both are equally hazardous driving situation for the general public. To some extent pot legalization is a classic law enforcement vs policing argument. By Peelian principles individual use while not endangering the public should never, ever, be enforced anyway regardless of law. By definition MJ can't be a hazard to yourself or the public as long as you're not driving or operating heavy machinery, so its simply not a police issue. Kinda like how some people argue immigration law enforcement is not a Peelian police issue.