4 ms·
If the laws were passed then what do you expect them to do?
by barumi 6y ago
If the laws were passed then what do you expect them to do?
- triceratops 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement
- barumi 6y agoYou do understand that you're arguing for the complete subversion of a government system with the naive assumption that rules would only be violated according to your personal wishes? If you have a problem with the rules, place the blame where the blame is due: the rule makers.
- triceratops 6y agoI don't believe I argued anything like that, just pointing out the fallacy of "if the law exists what are they gonna do?". Some laws are enforced more stringently than others and it's always a matter of priorities and resources. I have no opinion on this particular case. You are, of course, right that if a law can lead to bad outcomes of justice we mustn't rely on prosecutorial discretion.
- barumi 6y ago> I don't believe I argued anything like that, just pointing out the fallacy of "if the law exists what are they gonna do?". It's not a fallacy,it's the whole point of rule of law. Arguing in favour of the virtues of a corrupt system just because you believe it benefits you personally is not only naive but also very dangerous, because as we see on a daily basis rules are bent to harm you, not to benefit you. If you care anything about a free and just society, you don't argue fora corrupt system that arbitrarily picks which rules applies to you. It's this simple.
- staticman2 6y agoApparently your definition of a just society is one where prosecutors throw people in jail in enforcement of bad laws because the outcome of how many citizens are in jail is not the metric of whether you think society is just. Furthermore your definition of a more free society is one where more citizens are in jail because prosecutors throw everyone in jail rather than being "arbitrary". Just noting the basic irony here. Freedom= jail em all without discretion.
- triceratops 6y ago> Arguing in favour of the virtues of a corrupt system Didn't do that. Pointing out something exists isn't the same as arguing in its favor. > just because you believe it benefits you personally I don't believe that either. As I already said, I have no particular opinion about this case. > we see on a daily basis rules are bent to harm you, not to benefit you. What?
- vernie 6y agoI didn't take parent to be arguing in favor of selection prosecution but rather pointing this out as a suspicious instance of it. If the volume of laws outstrips the resources available to enforce them, how do you propose those resources are allocated?
- shard 6y agoEveryone is likely breaking some law at all times. That's why there's that video of a law professor telling you to shut up when you face a police officer. Not all laws can or should be enforced at all times. Not all laws are enforced at the time and place of your choosing.
- barumi 6y agoYou're trying to evade the question. If enforcing the rules is seen as a problem then the problem lies in the rules themselves and not in the whimsical and arbitrary application of them by a party that is already known for abusing them.
- shard 6y agoI am moving up levels of abstraction, and not evading the question. Your question is only a subset of the bigger picture. My point is that it is neither reasonable nor desirable to enforce all laws all the time. This does not mean that the unenforced laws have no value.