Hacker News Reader

Comment by derektank | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, there’s nothing more objectionable than a law that is not seriously enforced. It need not be perfectly enforced (what law is?), but anything that doesn’t come with real teeth should just be repealed, regardless of the merits

View on HN

> there’s nothing more objectionable than a law that

Wrong laws? Unacceptable laws? Ignorant laws? Absurd laws? Satanic laws?

Unbelievable.

(Edit: sorry, replied twice out of a mistake. I cannot consolidate with the previous reply, which cannot now be edited or deleted.)

That depends on the purpose of the individual law. Laws against murder must be enforced as much as possible, but the war on drugs has done a lot of unnecessary damage through excessive enforcement - drugs being illegal would still reduce drug use if that was only lightly enforced. The law is not like a segmentation fault.

Maybe I'm misreading their point...but I'd think that OP was being intellectually consistent and saying that the drug laws should be enforced as written for everyone, or repealed and replaced by more sane laws... because of you were to enforce them as written, you'd have 20-30% (wild ass guess) of the country serving prison time.

Yes, laws should be repealed if they’re bad. And I think strict enforcement makes it clearer when laws are bad. I would much rather everyone get the same treatment by the criminal justice system every time they violate the law, so everyone knows the true cost of the law, not just those that are unlucky

What if everyone gets the same treatment but the treatment is a wrist slap instead of 20 years in jail?

If that fulfills the purpose of the law then that’s a better law. Turning the law into a lottery where 1/100k “criminals” is severely punished for a common behavior is not the answer.

As a citizen I should be able to read the law and understand that violations have a likely and proportional consequence. This requires sensible laws. I shouldn’t need to play a guessing game (or consult a lawyer) about which laws are “real” for the average person and which can be ignored.

Alternatively, if the problem with a behavior is that it might bother someone (noise complaints etc), set up a better/more accessible channel for civil disputes. Not everything needs to be a crime.

That is the law. It's not a life sentence for using social media as a child. You say it doesn't need to be a crime, but perhaps you've not been made aware that it already isn't a crime?

This was in a minor subthread about drug laws, so I was responding to that.

That’s strict enforcement of a weak punishment. I am entirely in favor of that.

You cannot talk about absurd absasing laws and fixate about enforcement. It is excusing satanism. It is diverting attention. It is "if dystopia is to happen, it would be defensible that it be done seriously".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com