Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
There are laws that exist to indicate what society thinks about a topic - without actually ever being enforced. For example, suicide, adultery, sodomy, illegal immigration or even abortion are or might be laws on the books at a state or federal level. Drinking alcohol in public might be illegal, which is politely addressed by using brown paper bags so police don't feel compelled to arrest public drinkers.
I can see why this is advantageous. I think it makes sense that we frown on adultery or suicide as a society, but don't actually ever prosecute it. The Torah has laws like this, too - we understand that the laws concerning a rebellious son were never enforced.
On the other hand, the state can always decide to get someone by nailing them for easy violations of the law that are almost never enforced - like being slightly over the speed limit, or changing your own oil and allowing a drop to hit the ground. In my city, it is a misdemeanor offense to throw out more than 32 gallons of refuse a week - our home can easily hit 5 64-gallon bins each week (home office, many people, many meals).
Harvard University professor Harvey Silverglate estimates that daily life in the United States is so over-criminalized, the average American professional commits about three felonies a day. And I hate and fear the fact that the Deep State can always get someone, Beria-style: "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."
Torah notwithstanding, I have come to believe that we must seek to enforce all laws - which means that laws that are NOT enforced must be struck from the books. This could be a state initiative or even, over time, become a constitutional amendment. I think we should have far, far fewer laws, so we maximize freedom.
What do others think? Should we use law to set the aspiration, openly acknowledging that we all fall short? Or should we enshrine in our laws the principle that uneven enforcement should be a defense against the accusation of law-breaking? Or something else...?
Discussion (44)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Passing laws without the intention of enforcing them tends to engender contempt for the law.
I've seen one estimate that there are some 22,000 gun laws in this country, yet only a handful ever have violations prosecuted. Most are, at best, plea bargained away when there is a more significant infraction. The laws themselves were promulgated in the wake of some incident by politicians desperate to be seen as "doing something."
From the foolishness of virtue signaling busybodies, Lord defend us.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
John Adams said: Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Perhaps this is why we must legislate morality (your examples of abortion, adultery, suicide, and sodomy).
But, as @Percival said: Passing laws without the intention of enforcing them tends to engender contempt for the law.
You raise good questions.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
We should make a distinction between no enforcement and strict enforcement of a law, the speed limit being a prime example. Ticketing drivers whose excessive speed is dangerous is good, so we need the law on the books. However, safety is a continuum - you don't instantaneously go from "safe" to "dangerous" if you go 1 MPH over the speed limit. Yet we need that limit to allow law enforcement to get the most egregious violators.
On top of that, police and courts don't have the time or numbers to go process every trivial violation of the speed limit. That's why they usually have a "buffer" of sorts before their radar triggers. It varies from state to state and locale to locale. Here in Aiken, I was talking to a member of the South Carolina Highway Patrol about speed traps on my street. He told me they (the Patrol) set their radars to lock on 15 MPH or more over the limit. Anything below that is ignored. Later, I read when SC law enforcement "crack downs" on speeding during holiday periods, they lower the setting to 10 MPH over.
In general, laws on the books are there for a reason. Even if law enforcement is not actively enforcing a particular law, having it on the books means when the police does come across a violation, they can make an arrest.
However, I agree that there are laws on the books that are so dated, they no longer make any sense. You can find web sites that cover some of the more ridiculous laws on the books. And yes, they should be removed . . .
MODERATOR • CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I remember Rush Limbaugh talking about this, probably 20 or more years ago - and before he was arrested for drug possession. His view was that the law is a teacher, so it's good to have laws against immoral things, even if the laws aren't enforced. Several years ago, the legislature in North Dakota revisited the law forbidding unmarried people of the opposite sex from living together. They decided to keep it, even though the law was never enforced.
I think this is a bad policy. Yes, police should have some discretion, as Stad mentions above. Someone going ten MPH over the speed limit on a sunny day in a car made for much higher speeds is not endangering anyone. Going ten MPH over the speed limit in a heavy truck in thick fog on an icy road is much riskier.
But a law that is never enforced is ripe for police abuse. A divorced cop who decides he's going to harass his ex-wife or her new boyfriend can probably find something to bust one of them for, using an old law that is still on the books, but never actually enforced. The cop may get scolded, and the prosecutor may choose not to prosecute, but the ex-wife still got put through the humiliation of being arrested, fingerprinted, etc. If you don't seriously think someone would be punished by the state, you should not advocate passing such a law or keeping it on the books.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
No.
You're seeing five of 44 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.