4 ms·
Laws and punishments were created and tuned expecting that only a small portion of offenses and offenders would be caught, or that punishment could be applied s
by code_duck 8y ago
Laws and punishments were created and tuned expecting that only a small portion of offenses and offenders would be caught, or that punishment could be applied selectively. Punishment of some plays a role as a publicly visible deterrent. That means the punishments are more severe then could be reasonably applied for every infraction of the crime. Crimes that are very common such as speeding or cannabis make good examples of this. If detection and prosecution of those crimes became 100% effective and consistent, courts would be overwhelmed, and the economy would be turned on its head as people go bankrupt paying fines and legal fees or losing their jobs.
I assume people would very move quickly to get the speed limits changed to a number that represents the actual maximum speed you can go before receiving a ticket, rather than the vague percentage/luck combo that it is now.
- danschumann 8y agoI'm not disagreeing with you, because there is definitely a balance, but I definitely see places where we have have too many laws, which leaves room for tyranny. For example, If there are so many laws that everyone is always doing something illegal all the time, then a corrupt cop can stop anyone he wants to at any time, because they've got to be guilty of something. It's a reason for types of deregulation, and keeping law slim in general.
- code_duck 8y agoI think we're in agreement. Criminalizing common activity gives police discretion for selective enforcement, which leaves the door open for abuse. Contrived example: everyone is speeding, and a corrupt cop only tickets cars with bumper stickers for sports teams that oppose his favorite. It could be a lot worse than that, of course. When police have to overlook a large amount of activity that violates the law, something is wrong with the law.