5 ms·

>Why is this a problem? Minor offenses are still offenses and they can often be very frustrating and problematic. They still deserve police attention where they

by pooper 6y ago

>Why is this a problem? Minor offenses are still offenses and they can often be very frustrating and problematic. They still deserve police attention where they constitute a violation of the law. Streamlining the process is a positive not negative, and the framing here just seems like these activist groups don’t want people to be held accountable. Be careful of what you wish for. You might wish to look at your local municipal/county/parish/state laws. I likely break dozens of laws/ordinances every day and I'm very positive you do as well, without even knowing it. I am very saddened that I have to spell this out. I don't know whether you use NextDoor, throwawaysea. Would you be willing to post this under your real name in NextDoor and share the link here?

SilasX 6y ago
>I likely break dozens of laws/ordinances every day and I'm very positive you do as well, without even knowing it. Okay but then isn't that the real problem? Of not regularly weeding out laws against things that people don't really feel need to be banned? It's kind of clumsy to take the approach of, "We're going to keep dubious laws on the books, and also have ultra-random, haphazard enforcement of all laws regardless of how merited."
- arrrg 6y ago
  Both are problems. People who abuse that situation and useless laws on the books.
- notatoad 6y ago
  yes, that is a real problem and it should be solved. but in the absence of a solution to that problem, shutting down tools that make it easy to take advantage of that problem to be racist and/or annoying is a decent starting point.
- baddox 6y ago
  The problem is that when everyone is guilty of something, the government can pick and choose who it punishes, through prosecutorial discretion, selective policing, and other means.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    So the police and government want to keep the broken laws
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  We can do both. Non-enforcement of bollocks laws is a feature. Most people will not ever interact with law enforcement over bollocks laws. There will always be bollocks laws. Your wider point stands though, we should do some pruning, but that takes time, whereas non-enforcement is instantaneous. Do both.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    Yeah, but "bollocks" is a four-letter word (metaphorically) -- the feature doesn't first establish consensus on what laws are bollocks. What you call a bollocks law, I might call "reasonable one that ensures people aren't screaming outside my window at 1am".
    - jquery 6y ago
      You’re absolutely right, I don’t understand why you’re being downvoted.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>Most people will not ever interact with law enforcement over bollocks laws. That is actually a very bad thing, and once the people in power abuse If few people encounter "bollocks" laws then there is no outrage over their enforcement, therefore if you piss off the wrong person in government suddenly they go over your life with a fine tooth comb and you have 100 "bollocks" charges and your life is ruined but since you are just one person there is no so speak out for you. >There will always be bollocks laws. That is a bollocks position and one that can be solved (in part) with mandatory sunset of all laws. Every Law, Regulation, and policy should have to be affirmed by the legislature at minimum every 20 years if not more often. If not is ceases to exists
Kiro 6y ago
> I likely break dozens of laws/ordinances every day and I'm very positive you do as well, without even knowing it. Any examples?
- jes 6y ago
  There is a book, "Three Felonies a Day" that may interest you. The suggestion is that essentially all of us are committing at least three felonies a day. I have not tried to verify the claims made in the book.
  - Kiro 6y ago
    Thanks. I have a hard time finding concrete examples from the book but I get the impression that it's partly due to the US judicial system (I'm not from the US). Would be nice to see the top felonies people unknowingly commit on a daily basis. It's by the way really annoying that my question gets downvoted by zealous users who think I'm trying to make some kind of point when I was just genuinely interested. This site feels like a big aggressive battlefield nowadays, where everyone is just arguing and no-one is discussing like normal curious human beings.
    - cutemonster 6y ago
      > zealous users who think I'm trying to make some kind of point when I was just genuinely interested. I think that's how life and a fraction of the people in a large group tend to be everywhere. And sometimes can be good to try to guess how others will interpret one's intentions, and write sth to sort out misunderstandings before they happen But not always easy to guess / remember to
  - j88439h84 6y ago
    From what I can tell googling around, there's no support provided for the provocative "three felonies a day" claim. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-average-american-unwittingly-commit-three-felonies-a-day https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-...
- 6y ago
duskwuff 6y ago
> I don't know whether you use NextDoor, throwawaysea. Would you be willing to post this under your real name in NextDoor and share the link here? That sounds to me rather like you're saying "tell us your real name or you're lying", which seems a rather specious (and hostile) argument.

by pooper 6y ago

SilasX 6y ago

>I likely break dozens of laws/ordinances every day and I'm very positive you do as well, without even knowing it. Okay but then isn't that the real problem? Of not regularly weeding out laws against things that people don't really feel need to be banned? It's kind of clumsy to take the approach of, "We're going to keep dubious laws on the books, and also have ultra-random, haphazard enforcement of all laws regardless of how merited."

arrrg 6y ago
Both are problems. People who abuse that situation and useless laws on the books.
notatoad 6y ago
yes, that is a real problem and it should be solved. but in the absence of a solution to that problem, shutting down tools that make it easy to take advantage of that problem to be racist and/or annoying is a decent starting point.
baddox 6y ago
The problem is that when everyone is guilty of something, the government can pick and choose who it punishes, through prosecutorial discretion, selective policing, and other means.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  So the police and government want to keep the broken laws
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
We can do both. Non-enforcement of bollocks laws is a feature. Most people will not ever interact with law enforcement over bollocks laws. There will always be bollocks laws. Your wider point stands though, we should do some pruning, but that takes time, whereas non-enforcement is instantaneous. Do both.
- SilasX 6y ago
  Yeah, but "bollocks" is a four-letter word (metaphorically) -- the feature doesn't first establish consensus on what laws are bollocks. What you call a bollocks law, I might call "reasonable one that ensures people aren't screaming outside my window at 1am".
  - jquery 6y ago
    You’re absolutely right, I don’t understand why you’re being downvoted.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>Most people will not ever interact with law enforcement over bollocks laws. That is actually a very bad thing, and once the people in power abuse If few people encounter "bollocks" laws then there is no outrage over their enforcement, therefore if you piss off the wrong person in government suddenly they go over your life with a fine tooth comb and you have 100 "bollocks" charges and your life is ruined but since you are just one person there is no so speak out for you. >There will always be bollocks laws. That is a bollocks position and one that can be solved (in part) with mandatory sunset of all laws. Every Law, Regulation, and policy should have to be affirmed by the legislature at minimum every 20 years if not more often. If not is ceases to exists

Kiro 6y ago

> I likely break dozens of laws/ordinances every day and I'm very positive you do as well, without even knowing it. Any examples?

jes 6y ago
There is a book, "Three Felonies a Day" that may interest you. The suggestion is that essentially all of us are committing at least three felonies a day. I have not tried to verify the claims made in the book.
- Kiro 6y ago
  Thanks. I have a hard time finding concrete examples from the book but I get the impression that it's partly due to the US judicial system (I'm not from the US). Would be nice to see the top felonies people unknowingly commit on a daily basis. It's by the way really annoying that my question gets downvoted by zealous users who think I'm trying to make some kind of point when I was just genuinely interested. This site feels like a big aggressive battlefield nowadays, where everyone is just arguing and no-one is discussing like normal curious human beings.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    > zealous users who think I'm trying to make some kind of point when I was just genuinely interested. I think that's how life and a fraction of the people in a large group tend to be everywhere. And sometimes can be good to try to guess how others will interpret one's intentions, and write sth to sort out misunderstandings before they happen But not always easy to guess / remember to
- j88439h84 6y ago
  From what I can tell googling around, there's no support provided for the provocative "three felonies a day" claim. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-average-american-unwittingly-commit-three-felonies-a-day https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22530/does-the-...
6y ago

duskwuff 6y ago

> I don't know whether you use NextDoor, throwawaysea. Would you be willing to post this under your real name in NextDoor and share the link here? That sounds to me rather like you're saying "tell us your real name or you're lying", which seems a rather specious (and hostile) argument.