4 ms·

I don't see how this can hold, without some severe restrictions on what you actually mean by 'bias.' As a kind of silly example, I posit that muggings closer t

I don't see how this can hold, without some severe restrictions on what you actually mean by 'bias.' As a kind of silly example, I posit that muggings closer to police stations are more likely to result in an arrest. Now we have bias in enforcement based on police station location. Do we need to build floating police stations equidistant from every place a mugging could take place? And this is generously assuming muggings in police stations are discounted from this analysis. If you don't, perhaps muggings in police stations are legal? I strongly suspect you're somehow only applying this particular standard to (potential) white collar crime, which seems absurd.

abfan1127 6y ago
I agree its a challenge many laws don't meet, and perhaps I wasn't clear, so lets take another chance to clarify. Lets take your example. Muggings have a clear victim. A mugger clearly used violence or threat of violence to forcibly remove someone else's property against their will. Now, if the Law said only its only illegal to mug citizens (tourists, illegal aliens, etc), then clearly the law is picking winners and losers here. If the law says its illegal to mug anyone, but reports of muggings to tourists went categorically uninvestigated, then the government is choosing winners and losers, not via legislation, but by implementation, which is also wrong. In this case, the fix isn't the mugging law, but the implementation. I'm a baseball fan. Everyone knows that everyone cheats in the game of baseball. Whether its hiding small things like pine tar, or like the Astros using electronic devices relaying signals. When there's marginal enforcement, and marginal discipline, then its not really a law, and its only used against the current regime's enemies so to speak. So, why keep it as a law? Further, if we make all electronic communication devices legal, then pitchers and catchers can have an ear piece, and this concept of signs and sign stealing is moot. The same applies to all governance. If you can't apply the same laws uniformly, then they become the tool of the state to suppress its enemies, i.e. choosing winners and losers. [1] - https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/news/astros-scandal-timeline-sign-stealing-punishment/zbe6j4yoi1g21ia0say31zv3n https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/news/astros-scandal-time...
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Both examples are very bad. Surely the “bias” in the rule referred to the person committing the crime, not the target. And the rules in baseball are neither laws, nor apparently enforced with bias. Seems like they’re not enforced at all. Of course it would be nice with bias free laws in some abstract sense. But I’ve never heard anyone say it was an absolute precondition. Then we’d have no laws.

abfan1127 6y ago

I agree its a challenge many laws don't meet, and perhaps I wasn't clear, so lets take another chance to clarify. Lets take your example. Muggings have a clear victim. A mugger clearly used violence or threat of violence to forcibly remove someone else's property against their will. Now, if the Law said only its only illegal to mug citizens (tourists, illegal aliens, etc), then clearly the law is picking winners and losers here. If the law says its illegal to mug anyone, but reports of muggings to tourists went categorically uninvestigated, then the government is choosing winners and losers, not via legislation, but by implementation, which is also wrong. In this case, the fix isn't the mugging law, but the implementation. I'm a baseball fan. Everyone knows that everyone cheats in the game of baseball. Whether its hiding small things like pine tar, or like the Astros using electronic devices relaying signals. When there's marginal enforcement, and marginal discipline, then its not really a law, and its only used against the current regime's enemies so to speak. So, why keep it as a law? Further, if we make all electronic communication devices legal, then pitchers and catchers can have an ear piece, and this concept of signs and sign stealing is moot. The same applies to all governance. If you can't apply the same laws uniformly, then they become the tool of the state to suppress its enemies, i.e. choosing winners and losers. [1] - https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/news/astros-scandal-timeline-sign-stealing-punishment/zbe6j4yoi1g21ia0say31zv3n https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/news/astros-scandal-time...

Grustaf 6y ago
Both examples are very bad. Surely the “bias” in the rule referred to the person committing the crime, not the target. And the rules in baseball are neither laws, nor apparently enforced with bias. Seems like they’re not enforced at all. Of course it would be nice with bias free laws in some abstract sense. But I’ve never heard anyone say it was an absolute precondition. Then we’d have no laws.