6 ms·

Because the police force would spend approximately 100% of its time writing jaywalking citations and courts would spend approximately 100% of its time dealing w

Because the police force would spend approximately 100% of its time writing jaywalking citations and courts would spend approximately 100% of its time dealing with the administration of jaywalking offenses. I think a charitable way to think about it is that jaywalking can sometime be a serious threat to public safety but most of the time its harmless. So we have a law against jaywalking in general but in practice its more like a law against jaywalking that causes a breach of public safety. But the latter condition is hard/impossible to really codify so in practice the best way to deal with it is just make a law against jaywalking and then make the second condition discretionary on the part of law enforcement. It is of course abused frequently (police may be much more likely to hassle minorities or people who "look suspect") but I'm not sure the alternatives would be better on net

kelnos 6y ago
My opinion is that a law that should not be enforced uniformly should then not be a law at all. Agree that jaywalking can be a threat to public safety. The law, as written, should account for that. "A pedestrian shall not cross a public road outside of a crosswalk intended for pedestrians, unless it is safe to do so." Yes, there's then a bit of wiggle room where a cop and jaywalker can disagree on what is and is not safe. But at least that's something you can argue in court, and the cop needs to argue why it wasn't safe, while the pedestrian needs to argue why it was. As it is now, if you get a jaywalking ticket, you probably got one not because you were doing something unsafe, but because a cop didn't like how you looked; no cop is going to waste their time on a jaywalking ticket unless they have an axe to grind. But what is this pedestrian to do? Go in front of a judge and say, "Your honor, I know jaywalking is illegal, but everyone does it, I was doing it completely safely, and I think this cop has it in for me"? Right, like that'd work. I jaywalk all the time and think it's mad that we have laws written strictly against it, even though I know those laws are rarely enforced. For me it doesn't matter; I'm financially comfortable enough that if, against all odds, I got a jaywalking ticket, I'd just pay it and move on. There are many people, some who might be more likely to be targeted by police, for whom that kind of fine would be a financial burden. Not to mention that taking time off work to go to court for it would be impossible.
mantap 6y ago
Imagine you are a legislator. If know that laws will not be completely enforced then it gives you the freedom to create laws that are bad or overly harsh because that harshness is rarely seen. Whereas if you know the police will enforce these laws against you and your family you will be much less likely to support them.
- thinkharderdev 6y ago
  To be fair no law is completely enforced. Even if there is no discretion on the part of law enforcement, they still have limited resources and have to prioritize enforcement in certain areas. I do take your point though. It is easy for legislators to pass laws against all manner of things because they know that the police won't be patrolling their neighborhoods enforcing them.

kelnos 6y ago

My opinion is that a law that should not be enforced uniformly should then not be a law at all. Agree that jaywalking can be a threat to public safety. The law, as written, should account for that. "A pedestrian shall not cross a public road outside of a crosswalk intended for pedestrians, unless it is safe to do so." Yes, there's then a bit of wiggle room where a cop and jaywalker can disagree on what is and is not safe. But at least that's something you can argue in court, and the cop needs to argue why it wasn't safe, while the pedestrian needs to argue why it was. As it is now, if you get a jaywalking ticket, you probably got one not because you were doing something unsafe, but because a cop didn't like how you looked; no cop is going to waste their time on a jaywalking ticket unless they have an axe to grind. But what is this pedestrian to do? Go in front of a judge and say, "Your honor, I know jaywalking is illegal, but everyone does it, I was doing it completely safely, and I think this cop has it in for me"? Right, like that'd work. I jaywalk all the time and think it's mad that we have laws written strictly against it, even though I know those laws are rarely enforced. For me it doesn't matter; I'm financially comfortable enough that if, against all odds, I got a jaywalking ticket, I'd just pay it and move on. There are many people, some who might be more likely to be targeted by police, for whom that kind of fine would be a financial burden. Not to mention that taking time off work to go to court for it would be impossible.

mantap 6y ago

Imagine you are a legislator. If know that laws will not be completely enforced then it gives you the freedom to create laws that are bad or overly harsh because that harshness is rarely seen. Whereas if you know the police will enforce these laws against you and your family you will be much less likely to support them.

thinkharderdev 6y ago
To be fair no law is completely enforced. Even if there is no discretion on the part of law enforcement, they still have limited resources and have to prioritize enforcement in certain areas. I do take your point though. It is easy for legislators to pass laws against all manner of things because they know that the police won't be patrolling their neighborhoods enforcing them.