5 ms·
So you are suggesting that some laws aren't worth upholding because they aren't financially viable?
by weego 14y ago
So you are suggesting that some laws aren't worth upholding because they aren't financially viable?
- ericHosick 14y agoThey might be hinting at victimless crimes.
- downandout 14y agoI'm suggesting that historical warrant service rates are used in calculating budgets, and making staffing and other decisions that will be hard to address in such a compressed period of time. One would assume this will result in a 57% increase in caseloads, which means 57% more time that cases take to make their way through court since more judges can't just magically appear. Most jails operate at or above capacity; a sudden 57% increase in inmates will result in all kinds of lawsuits and other expenses both for the inmates and for the counties that operate them. Finally, yes, seeing minor crimes all the way through the court system is of questionable social value relative to the economic expense.
- bostonpete 14y agoAll of what you say may be true, but you're not actually advocating that a good solution here is to prevent certain parts of the system from working efficiently? There are probably better and more equitable ways to reduce case loads.
- king_jester 14y agoSome laws are not worth upholding or keeping, so arrests and court systems processing cases for those laws by definition aren't financially viable.
- flyinRyan 14y agoWell, ideally laws that don't make sense to enforce (e.g. drug laws) wouldn't even exist in the first place. Failing that, not enforcing them would be the next sensible step.
- hanleybrand 14y agoExcept that laws that deal with morality and other behaviors that people never agree on (drugs and alcohol, sex, public behaviors, etc.) are political suicide to repeal, so few legislators would ever be willing to try, so (fill in the blank) will be illegal in (fill in State) for the foreseeable future.