Should laws be passed without intent to enforce them?

[DC Al Fine]

I've noticed a trend of some posters to support banning something but openly stating the law shouldn't be enforced. This position is usually taken with:

1) Banning spanking/smacking as a means to discipline kids
2) Banning circumcision

The position is usually argued for as a way to change social norms without the issues associated with say, taking away children due to violating the law.

Personally I oppose this position as it tends towards nanny-statism. That is, passing a law without enforcement tacitly recognizes that there is a difference between the unpunished crime and similar punished crime. This in turn leads to people/the state regulating preferences, as it is easier to pass unenforced laws compared to enforced ones.

Thoughts?

[Intell]

I've noticed a trend of some posters to support banning something but openly stating the law shouldn't be enforced. This position is usually taken with:

1) Banning spanking/smacking as a means to discipline kids
2) Banning circumcision

The position is usually argued for as a way to change social norms without the issues associated with say, taking away children due to violating the law.

Personally I oppose this position as it tends towards nanny-statism. That is, passing a law without enforcement tacitly recognizes that there is a difference between the unpunished crime and similar punished crime. This in turn leads to people/the state regulating preferences, as it is easier to pass unenforced laws compared to enforced ones.

Thoughts?

Yes (Laws should provide moral standpoint, whether enforced or not, adultery should be against the law, enforcement is a different.)

[dead0man]

obviously not

govts should not be in the business of defining morality

[Antonio the Sixth]

govts should not be in the business of defining morality

This is one of most unbelievably moronic talking points ever uttered in modern political discourse (and I say this despite the fact that most of the times it's people on my "side" who use it).

[DavidB.]

adultery should be against the law

ummmmmm

[RI]

adultery should be against the law

ummmmmm

If you're going to be passing laws with the intent not to enforce them, then why not?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyway, as for the question, no. If a law is in the books then it should be enforced. If it shouldn't be enforced, then it should be repealed.

Now, on the other hand, I have no issue enacting laws that are morally sound but whose efficacy would be limited.

[Intell]

Anyway, as for the question, no. If a law is in the books then it should be enforced. If it shouldn't be enforced, then it should be repealed.

Now, on the other hand, I have no issue enacting laws that are morally sound but whose efficacy would be limited.

An example of non-enforceable law to an extent, may be marijuana, the drug, at least in my opinion should be illegal, and criminalised, but there should be no punishment for those who consume it, apart from confiscation, and maybe a fine, if caught, for the drug dealer and the drug user, they should be helped with rehabilitation.

I still stand by my statement, that adultery should be against the law, probably enforced, in a divorce scenario maybe in the court of law, and I used not enforce, which is sort of true but not also ture.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Difficult to enforce =/= impossible to enforce

What about a state like Somalia, where the government can pass laws that in large sections of the country are merely theoretical?

[TrumpCard]

Doing one thing and intending another is part of politics so yes.  In a way I don't think we can live without idle laws once in a while.  Now the debate becomes which laws apply?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Difficult to enforce =/= impossible to enforce

What about a state like Somalia, where the government can pass laws that in large sections of the country are merely theoretical?

I'd make a distinctions between laws that can't be enforced as a practical matters (like both the Somalia example and the spanking one) and laws that are deliberately written so as to make them unenforceable. I have no problem with the former, but the latter strikes me as a bit hypocritical tbh.

[TrumpCard]

Difficult to enforce =/= impossible to enforce

What about a state like Somalia, where the government can pass laws that in large sections of the country are merely theoretical?

I'd make a distinctions between laws that can't be enforced as a practical matters (like both the Somalia example and the spanking one) and laws that are deliberately written so as to make them unenforceable. I have no problem with the former, but the latter strikes me as a bit hypocritical tbh.

That's the problem with it I agree but is part of politics.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I've noticed a trend of some posters to support banning something but openly stating the law shouldn't be enforced. This position is usually taken with:

1) Banning spanking/smacking as a means to discipline kids
2) Banning circumcision

I haven't read any posts calling for a ban on circumcision nor spanking so I don't know how "usual" a call for a ban let alone an unenforced ban is.  Why would someone even propose an unenforced ban on circumcision?  If it is against the law I don't know of any doctor who would perform the procedure.  Are there doctors out there that are in the habit of breaking the law?  Other than outliers like Kevorkian most doctors have too much to lose.

Is this a nonissue someone is trying to make into an issue?

To answer the title of the thread... If a law is on the books it should be enforced.  If it isn't enforced it should be removed.  America has too many laws.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If I want to say something nice about it then passing a law without intending to enforce it...makes sense in terms of the philosophical framework positing that laws are an expression of the "public will", which is not an entirely wrong view considering that we live in a representative republic.

     Practically though I see very little point in doing such a thing. Laws should only exist if they are to be enforced.

[Figueira]

Re: spanking, this is a difficult issue because the usual punishment for child abuse is taking children away from parents; however, this would be a rather extreme measure in this instance. I think it might be useful to ban the practice with the intent to enforce it when it gets really, really bad. Arresting all parents who are guilty of spanking wouldn't really accomplish anything.

Circumcision is weird because there can be medical reasons for it as well, so I'm not sure how you would enforce the distinction here.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Circumcision is weird because there can be medical reasons for it as well, so I'm not sure how you would enforce the distinction here.

Shooting up morphine is illegal but people still get it for medical reasons.  Why do people treat circumcision as some kind of mystical thing?  It is just snipping off the foreskin.  Just say it will only be done for medical reasons.  There.  Done.

[Enduro]

If you pass a law, you have to enforce it. The real question we should ask ourselves is "should this law be passed?"

[Kingpoleon]

Re: spanking, this is a difficult issue because the usual punishment for child abuse is taking children away from parents; however, this would be a rather extreme measure in this instance. I think it might be useful to ban the practice with the intent to enforce it when it gets really, really bad. Arresting all parents who are guilty of spanking wouldn't really accomplish anything.

To be completely honest, I don't think my parents should be arrested. I know that's controversial among the edgy Atlas teens.

[Seneca]

obviously not

govts should not be in the business of defining morality

Agreed.

Additionally, putting these sorts of laws on the books creates a legal quagmire, contributing to the modern condition where there are so many laws that a person could be breaking at any one time that police can pick and choose who to arrest. As a result, enforcement is arbitrary and skewed towards actions which collect revenue for the state (see the "drug war").

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

obviously not

govts should not be in the business of defining morality

Agreed.

Wtf, how can you make any laws at all without a basic moral definition?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

obviously not

govts should not be in the business of defining morality

Agreed.

Wtf, how can you make any laws at all without a basic moral definition?

American "liberalism" come full circle. "Obviously, everyone should define morality at the individual basis!"

[Wells]

No, unenforced laws are pointless and should all just be repealed. As for speaking and circumcision, they shouldn't be punished but instead we should encourage people to not do that.

[Seneca]

obviously not

govts should not be in the business of defining morality

Agreed.

Wtf, how can you make any laws at all without a basic moral definition?

My agreement with dead0man was tongue-in-cheek. I agree that the government shouldn't "be in the business of defining morality" because I don't think states should exist.

[Ban my account ffs!]

This is a very bad idea.  It just gives waaaay more power to prosecutors and cops to let whites and rich people flout the law while Jamal and Rodrigo get the slammer.

Cops and prosecutors have done enough damage locking up the browns at the majority backed behest of the whites.

[muon2]

Many laws are enforceable, but due to limited resources can't be aggressively enforced. There's a grey area due to this that may make it seem that the laws are not being enforced.

To use an example, consider a municipal noise ordinance. Suppose the law says that if you are creating sound in excess of 60 dB at the property line you are subject to a fine. A person sees the police drive by a loud party and do nothing, so they ask why does the city have a noise ordinance if it is not enforced?

This is probably a case of selective enforcement due to procedure. It is a waste of police to have them continuously checking sound levels throughout the city when there are more serious threats that require active policing. So the police will wait until a neighbor complains and then check the situation for a violation. Even when there is a complaint the police would have the discretion to issue a warning and not a ticket.