What is your perspective on a government permitting activities that are technically illegal?
-
A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they're legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor's office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What's your view on the matter?
It shouldn’t be done. The law is the law and giving enforcement the power to choose which laws to enforce and which not to, even if the intentions are good, opens the door for the same attitude to be used in the future with ill intent. Exhibit 1: the US right now.
The voters use it to excuse the abuse of power for their preferred party, which creates an acceleration of the abuse too. For example Obama ordered marihuana not to be prosecuted if I recall correctly, liberals applauded it. Trump if an agency or organization doesn’t enforce the rule he likes withdraws funding, conservatives applaud this. To most observers these are two sides of the same coin: It’s using the power of the executive to legislate, when the executive should be a manager while congress are the bosses. So the executive branches should not have a say in which laws get enforced, they should enforce them and let the judiciary sort it.
-
A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they're legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor's office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What's your view on the matter?
In the United States, this has a racial component. If we depend on cops to overlook certain things, then they will be more likely to overlook it for white people than black people. Enlightened Centrists will say "whelp, they technically broke the law" without any further insight.
-
It shouldn’t be done. The law is the law and giving enforcement the power to choose which laws to enforce and which not to, even if the intentions are good, opens the door for the same attitude to be used in the future with ill intent. Exhibit 1: the US right now.
The voters use it to excuse the abuse of power for their preferred party, which creates an acceleration of the abuse too. For example Obama ordered marihuana not to be prosecuted if I recall correctly, liberals applauded it. Trump if an agency or organization doesn’t enforce the rule he likes withdraws funding, conservatives applaud this. To most observers these are two sides of the same coin: It’s using the power of the executive to legislate, when the executive should be a manager while congress are the bosses. So the executive branches should not have a say in which laws get enforced, they should enforce them and let the judiciary sort it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Hmm, I can see how it creates a dynamic where the executive, in increasing magnitude, starts to ignore the other branches of government. With a loud minority of the voters encouraging it. Just to spite the previous administration. - "Now it's our time" reasoning.
-
The 3rd season of The Wire try to explain that
For the case of Danemark I don’t know I’m not Dane and don’t know their political landscape.
I’ll can talk about Vancouver a little, in the first decade of the 2000 the gov (mayor office ?) gave its ok to stop prosecuting and arresting people who take drug (not selling it). They stop financing « criminalizing tactics » and for a while it work however as the years pass (and as I understand it) they slowly reverse track. Now they’re saying there is an epidemic and people are smoking crack on the streets unbother by the police (who seems to use this new problem to ask for more money from the city).
Don’t get me wrong I think that decriminalizing is the only way and prosecuting a « 1 consenting-ish victim crime » take a lot of time for nothing. What you need is service and specialized help.
Decriminalizing is not the way. The only way is legalizing sale, manufacture and distribution of drugs. That way you can:
A) control quality standards
B) extract taxes to pay for rehabilitation programs
C) eliminate black market and thus lower crime rateThe perfect, literally perfect, case study is alcohol. It was prohibited without eliminating the underlying demand, so what happened? The black market supplied the demand. What is happening nowadays? Alcohol consumption in the US is at its lowest levels.
-
Hmm, I can see how it creates a dynamic where the executive, in increasing magnitude, starts to ignore the other branches of government. With a loud minority of the voters encouraging it. Just to spite the previous administration. - "Now it's our time" reasoning.
Precisely how many conservatives excuse Trumps actions. And they are right, the executive branch has been accumulating power for decades and enforcing rules selectively. Trump is simply more transparent about it than any other before him.
-
A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they're legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor's office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What's your view on the matter?
wrote last edited by [email protected]The rules of my building are an interesting toy model of this. Technically I'm supposed to have carpets everywhere (I don't and no one else whose unit I've been in does) and even painting a room a different color requires board approval and a bunch of fees. In practice, many rules are not enforced against people who don't make trouble. A neighbor of mine even has a dog - not exactly a subtle violation. I suspect that all those rules are a response to the fact that it is legally really hard to evict someone. You can't just say "He's an asshole and all his neighbors hate him." But if fact if he's breaking a whole lot of rules (just like everyone else) then you can decide to make an issue of it in his case.
We're seeing this happen on a national scale with people like Lisa Cook now. She refuses to leave her job so Trump is threatening to have her criminally charged with mortgage fraud. Pretty much no one is ever criminally charged with mortgage fraud, but if the feds look closely at anyone's life then they will certainly find an error on a mortgage application or one of other countless possible crimes.
-
A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they're legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor's office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What's your view on the matter?
I think there should be flexibility in sentencing but not really enforcement. This kind of thing can be used for good or evil but I don't think its beneficial to have esoteric rules to be kept on the books for decades, waiting for the wrong person to abuse them. It's better to levy fines for sodomy (as an example) than to wait for that one dickhead to imprison people for life under the same statute.
-
The rules of my building are an interesting toy model of this. Technically I'm supposed to have carpets everywhere (I don't and no one else whose unit I've been in does) and even painting a room a different color requires board approval and a bunch of fees. In practice, many rules are not enforced against people who don't make trouble. A neighbor of mine even has a dog - not exactly a subtle violation. I suspect that all those rules are a response to the fact that it is legally really hard to evict someone. You can't just say "He's an asshole and all his neighbors hate him." But if fact if he's breaking a whole lot of rules (just like everyone else) then you can decide to make an issue of it in his case.
We're seeing this happen on a national scale with people like Lisa Cook now. She refuses to leave her job so Trump is threatening to have her criminally charged with mortgage fraud. Pretty much no one is ever criminally charged with mortgage fraud, but if the feds look closely at anyone's life then they will certainly find an error on a mortgage application or one of other countless possible crimes.
But if fact if he's breaking a whole lot of rules (just like everyone else) then you can decide to make an issue of it in his case.
I've never considered people view the law like that before, and it explains so much. That is how the justice system works!
Thank you
-
A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they're legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor's office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What's your view on the matter?
Like sexual abuse of children?
I guess because people in charge are pedophiles themselves.
-
A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they're legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor's office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What's your view on the matter?
wrote last edited by [email protected]The law should be revoked. I would not assume that the legislature is more legitimate than the local prosecutor who decides not to enforce. Often this situation happens when the legislature is captured by special interests who are unconcerned with popular will (and the risk of resistance), or by a national government trying to micromanage local and personal affairs.
-
But if fact if he's breaking a whole lot of rules (just like everyone else) then you can decide to make an issue of it in his case.
I've never considered people view the law like that before, and it explains so much. That is how the justice system works!
Thank you
Yes this happens alot. That is also how my HOA's rules were explained to me.
Laws are often a farce -- just a distraction from the raw use (abuse) of power. -
One of the reasons immigration is so fucked in the US is because of selective enforcement of the immigration laws that occurred for decades.
Just fix the law or risk a new administration coming in and deciding to start enforcing the laws as you have to watch the chaos and pain.
The 'selective enforcement' occurred because strict enforcement would be much more expensive than what anyone wanted -- yet a fanatical minority was able to play games in Congress to repeatedly block bipartisan deals for "comprehensive immigration reform" (under Bush, Obama, and Biden).
-
A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they're legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor's office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What's your view on the matter?
This kind of thing can be considered a form of “checks and balances”. If one branch of the government passes a law and another branch enforces it, both branches have to agree for the law to function.
-
The rules of my building are an interesting toy model of this. Technically I'm supposed to have carpets everywhere (I don't and no one else whose unit I've been in does) and even painting a room a different color requires board approval and a bunch of fees. In practice, many rules are not enforced against people who don't make trouble. A neighbor of mine even has a dog - not exactly a subtle violation. I suspect that all those rules are a response to the fact that it is legally really hard to evict someone. You can't just say "He's an asshole and all his neighbors hate him." But if fact if he's breaking a whole lot of rules (just like everyone else) then you can decide to make an issue of it in his case.
We're seeing this happen on a national scale with people like Lisa Cook now. She refuses to leave her job so Trump is threatening to have her criminally charged with mortgage fraud. Pretty much no one is ever criminally charged with mortgage fraud, but if the feds look closely at anyone's life then they will certainly find an error on a mortgage application or one of other countless possible crimes.
This is a core component of a corrupt system. Everyone needs dirt on everyone else to feel secure that they can screw you if you ever try to run against the grain.
Just look back at any of the police who get criminally charged. One of the charges against the cop will likely be "theft of state funds" or similar language. This means the cop stole overtime, which is so common as to be universal.
Another common example is tax-evasion under a dictatorship. Everyone in the ruling class does it, but run afoul of the regime, and off to jail you go.
-
This kind of thing can be considered a form of “checks and balances”. If one branch of the government passes a law and another branch enforces it, both branches have to agree for the law to function.
Hmm. I don't see the balance here: the conjugate would be the executive enforcing non-existant laws, and the legislative to be able to stop them. That isn't the case.
So clearly, the power balance is asymetric, and lies completely in favour of executive.
-
Hmm. I don't see the balance here: the conjugate would be the executive enforcing non-existant laws, and the legislative to be able to stop them. That isn't the case.
So clearly, the power balance is asymetric, and lies completely in favour of executive.
In the US this is supposed to be balanced by the judicial branch, which can decide if the executive is doing a good job of enforcing the laws or not. (Not that I think the US is a good example of a balanced government, given our current state…)
Some countries have more branches of government intended to help with this problem:
-
This kind of thing can be considered a form of “checks and balances”. If one branch of the government passes a law and another branch enforces it, both branches have to agree for the law to function.
No, that isn't a balance, because in that situation only one branch is deciding what gets enforced
-
A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they're legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor's office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What's your view on the matter?
I think there has to be a bit of judgment on the enforcement side. Like say you are underage drinking next to your house and you accidentally break your skateboard so you start yelling and you don’t see the cops on the corner. They come to make sure everyone/your roommates are and generally feel safe but don’t give you any tickets. They don’t care about the obvious intoxication or noise and just want to make sure people are safe. That’s the discretion I want in LE
-
I think there has to be a bit of judgment on the enforcement side. Like say you are underage drinking next to your house and you accidentally break your skateboard so you start yelling and you don’t see the cops on the corner. They come to make sure everyone/your roommates are and generally feel safe but don’t give you any tickets. They don’t care about the obvious intoxication or noise and just want to make sure people are safe. That’s the discretion I want in LE
I see what you mean, on an individual officer level.
The question refers more to officially declared policy by the prosecutor: "we will no longer prosecute behaviour X, even though it's illegal"
-
The 'selective enforcement' occurred because strict enforcement would be much more expensive than what anyone wanted -- yet a fanatical minority was able to play games in Congress to repeatedly block bipartisan deals for "comprehensive immigration reform" (under Bush, Obama, and Biden).
It's always confused me how USians refer to different congressional periods as happening "under" certain presidents as if they have any actual part to play in the legislative process itself. I live in a country where the head of government is the Prime Minister, whose equivalent would be the House Majority Leader, and actually has a lot to say about the legislative agenda.
