3 ms·

Having unenforced laws on the books ought to be considered like a “dead code” bad smell. And this dead thing reeks. As others have mentioned, selective enforcem

Having unenforced laws on the books ought to be considered like a “dead code” bad smell. And this dead thing reeks. As others have mentioned, selective enforcement falls on whoever the cops feel like hassling.

9rx 1y ago
They are considered that, but people are lazy and, at most, will leave a quip about it on an Internet forum, but certainly won't put in the effort to clean up where there is no apparent consequences to leaving the status quo intact.
kjkjadksj 1y ago
Well in the case of drinking there is a spectrum of acceptable behavior an observer would clearly determine but a law would struggle to formally define. You could say your drinking shouldn’t be a “nuisance” in the law but that is just as subjective as the current situation.
- wat10000 1y ago
  The difference is that crimes such as disorderly conduct are subjective not just for police, but also for juries. It's not perfect, but twelve people agree that you were causing trouble at a level that rises to criminality, there's a good chance there's something to it. With open container laws, it's only subjective for the police. Once you're charged, then all they have to prove about your conduct is that you had an open drink, not the real reason they decided to go after you.
  - kjkjadksj 1y ago
    Couldn’t that also go to a jury trial?
    - wat10000 1y ago
      Yes, but the jury will be asked to decide the question of whether the accused had an open container, of which there will be little doubt. A jury could decide that it's a case of selective malicious prosecution and acquit the accused despite believing them to have committed the crime, but that's uncommon and a much bigger reach than a jury weighing whether the accused was engaged in disorderly conduct because they're charged with disorderly conduct.

3 ms·

Having unenforced laws on the books ought to be considered like a “dead code” bad smell. And this dead thing reeks. As others have mentioned, selective enforcem

by bee_rider 1y ago

9rx 1y ago
They are considered that, but people are lazy and, at most, will leave a quip about it on an Internet forum, but certainly won't put in the effort to clean up where there is no apparent consequences to leaving the status quo intact.
kjkjadksj 1y ago
Well in the case of drinking there is a spectrum of acceptable behavior an observer would clearly determine but a law would struggle to formally define. You could say your drinking shouldn’t be a “nuisance” in the law but that is just as subjective as the current situation.
- wat10000 1y ago
  The difference is that crimes such as disorderly conduct are subjective not just for police, but also for juries. It's not perfect, but twelve people agree that you were causing trouble at a level that rises to criminality, there's a good chance there's something to it. With open container laws, it's only subjective for the police. Once you're charged, then all they have to prove about your conduct is that you had an open drink, not the real reason they decided to go after you.
  - kjkjadksj 1y ago
    Couldn’t that also go to a jury trial?
    - wat10000 1y ago
      Yes, but the jury will be asked to decide the question of whether the accused had an open container, of which there will be little doubt. A jury could decide that it's a case of selective malicious prosecution and acquit the accused despite believing them to have committed the crime, but that's uncommon and a much bigger reach than a jury weighing whether the accused was engaged in disorderly conduct because they're charged with disorderly conduct.