5 ms·

In the abstract, arbitrary enforcement of the law is a serious threat to democracy. No its not. Prosecutorial discretion is older than the US Constitution. No

In the abstract, arbitrary enforcement of the law is a serious threat to democracy. No its not. Prosecutorial discretion is older than the US Constitution. No one expects the police to pull over every driver that is going 36 in a 35, or arrest someone speeding to the hospital, or arrest everyone that fails to return a library book, or arrest every birthday party with loud music after 10. The police and prosecutors have always had the power to use their good judgment and warn without citing or prosecuting.

sidewndr46 4y ago
Something being old doesn't make it a good thing. Slavery was pretty old, we managed to get rid of that and I don't think we're worse off. To your point: I'd be thrilled if police officers actually pulled over everyone violating each and every traffic law. It'd make roads much safer and easier to use. As it stands where I live there is no longer any traffic enforcement.
InitialLastName 4y ago
The difficulty that arises when people in power have the opportunity to use judgement to decide the courses of other peoples' lives is that we regularly see that judgement implement their (entirely human, but unjust) biases. Maybe they let the hot girl run a stop sign, but do an "exploratory stop" on the black dude because he "looks sketchy", escalate to a strip search because of a "odor of marijuana" and leave him with his car disassembled on the side of the road when they don't find anything (assuming nobody catches a beating or a bullet over a miscommunication). On the other hand, efforts to constrain that power have a tendency to encode societal biases and injustices in law (see mandatory minimum sentences as a prime example), so it's not at all clear what the right compromise is.
- tiahura 4y ago
  Then fire them and get new ones. We want the system biased towards non-prosecution.
Thetawaves 4y ago
When unfair laws are enforced uniformly, the sons and daughters of the legislature, or even the legislature themselves become subject to the same laws they create. This applies the necessary pressure to repeal unjust laws. The alternative are laws that are only applied against 'bad people' - as determined through some inscrutable belief system. You should be able to imagine how this can be used to discriminate against entire classes of people.
wolrah 4y ago
> No one expects the police to pull over every driver that is going 36 in a 35 Why not? If it's ever OK to pull someone over for 1 MPH over the limit without any other violations, then why isn't it always? Where do you draw the line? Why not codify that instead of the strict limit? If there is supposed to be discretion, then the law should acknowledge this by not providing a strict limit and requiring that the state prove a case that the driver was being unsafe by traveling the speed they were. If there is a strict limit, then it should be set such that one can reasonably say that it's always wrong to exceed it. Saying it should be strictly enforced for some and loosely for others just leaves room for that discretion to be weaponized. --- It's also worth noting that at the moment speed enforcement has a much greater impact on the poor than the rich. For the most part if you can afford to hire a lawyer speeding tickets can be converted in to zero point off-the-record offenses and are then just a fine, and since fines are not scaled by income in this country anyone who has sufficient disposable income becomes effectively immune to them where a person living paycheck to paycheck already who then likely has to take some or all of a day off of work to go to court might be ruined. Fix that and I could be in favor of strict enforcement as long as it was truly universal. I feel like if everyone was actually forced to obey the posted limit strictly we'd get some progress on killing speed trap towns and fixing the many places where a fast road has been built with an arbitrarily low speed limit that no one ever follows because it's insane.
- lazide 4y ago
  Laws have always been used to enforce ‘public order’. They’re less capricious than a magistrate just coming up with things at least, but the public in general would be up in arms if they were enforced blindly instead of against ‘problem cases’. And the public ultimately is the power here, or the ones who decide if a big scene is going to be made anyway.
joebob42 4y ago
Absolutely they should. Fix the speed limits so they are not more or less universally wrong / too low, and then enforce them. Discretion on them is ridiculous, it just means a cop can pull you over and ticket you whenever they want because driving safely, the same speed everyone drives on a given road, is technically illegal.
- user3939382 4y ago
  Exactly. Selective enforcement translates to the govt being handed the power to punish anyone at any time for any reason. Think about that while you read stuff like this: "Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws" https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389...

sidewndr46 4y ago

Something being old doesn't make it a good thing. Slavery was pretty old, we managed to get rid of that and I don't think we're worse off. To your point: I'd be thrilled if police officers actually pulled over everyone violating each and every traffic law. It'd make roads much safer and easier to use. As it stands where I live there is no longer any traffic enforcement.

InitialLastName 4y ago

The difficulty that arises when people in power have the opportunity to use judgement to decide the courses of other peoples' lives is that we regularly see that judgement implement their (entirely human, but unjust) biases. Maybe they let the hot girl run a stop sign, but do an "exploratory stop" on the black dude because he "looks sketchy", escalate to a strip search because of a "odor of marijuana" and leave him with his car disassembled on the side of the road when they don't find anything (assuming nobody catches a beating or a bullet over a miscommunication). On the other hand, efforts to constrain that power have a tendency to encode societal biases and injustices in law (see mandatory minimum sentences as a prime example), so it's not at all clear what the right compromise is.

tiahura 4y ago
Then fire them and get new ones. We want the system biased towards non-prosecution.

Thetawaves 4y ago

When unfair laws are enforced uniformly, the sons and daughters of the legislature, or even the legislature themselves become subject to the same laws they create. This applies the necessary pressure to repeal unjust laws. The alternative are laws that are only applied against 'bad people' - as determined through some inscrutable belief system. You should be able to imagine how this can be used to discriminate against entire classes of people.

wolrah 4y ago

> No one expects the police to pull over every driver that is going 36 in a 35 Why not? If it's ever OK to pull someone over for 1 MPH over the limit without any other violations, then why isn't it always? Where do you draw the line? Why not codify that instead of the strict limit? If there is supposed to be discretion, then the law should acknowledge this by not providing a strict limit and requiring that the state prove a case that the driver was being unsafe by traveling the speed they were. If there is a strict limit, then it should be set such that one can reasonably say that it's always wrong to exceed it. Saying it should be strictly enforced for some and loosely for others just leaves room for that discretion to be weaponized. --- It's also worth noting that at the moment speed enforcement has a much greater impact on the poor than the rich. For the most part if you can afford to hire a lawyer speeding tickets can be converted in to zero point off-the-record offenses and are then just a fine, and since fines are not scaled by income in this country anyone who has sufficient disposable income becomes effectively immune to them where a person living paycheck to paycheck already who then likely has to take some or all of a day off of work to go to court might be ruined. Fix that and I could be in favor of strict enforcement as long as it was truly universal. I feel like if everyone was actually forced to obey the posted limit strictly we'd get some progress on killing speed trap towns and fixing the many places where a fast road has been built with an arbitrarily low speed limit that no one ever follows because it's insane.

lazide 4y ago
Laws have always been used to enforce ‘public order’. They’re less capricious than a magistrate just coming up with things at least, but the public in general would be up in arms if they were enforced blindly instead of against ‘problem cases’. And the public ultimately is the power here, or the ones who decide if a big scene is going to be made anyway.

joebob42 4y ago

Absolutely they should. Fix the speed limits so they are not more or less universally wrong / too low, and then enforce them. Discretion on them is ridiculous, it just means a cop can pull you over and ticket you whenever they want because driving safely, the same speed everyone drives on a given road, is technically illegal.

user3939382 4y ago
Exactly. Selective enforcement translates to the govt being handed the power to punish anyone at any time for any reason. Think about that while you read stuff like this: "Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws" https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389...