Is it hypocritical to have a law that you can't fully enforce?

It's like telling your kids to not do something and then not doing enough/not being able to make sure they're not doing it.

This pertains to drug laws, abortion laws, etc.

Millions of people do and take illegal drugs every year, but only a few get caught. So if the government can only stop a tiny percentage of drug users, while millions of other people are using the drug in the privacy of their own homes, then what exactly is the point of the law? (and don't reply to this saying that if the law wasn't there then everyone would take drugs, it has been proven throughout history that laws have little influence over what people do)

Abortion:

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/2/190.pdf

Women still performed abortions in the privacy of their own homes, where the government couldn't regulate them. So the only thing this law did was make abortions unsafe.

The problem with all of these laws is that they intend to inhibit privacy, and since people have not yet given up their right to privacy, these laws are practically unenforcable, and hence useless and pointless.

 

The majority of murderers get caught, while the majority of marijuana users don't get caught. And what if we had a largely religious government that believed that the immorality of not going to church paralleled the immorality of murder, so not going to church was illegal although they didn't do anything to enforce it.

 

Why are you bringing morals into politics. In the middle east it is highly immoral for a woman to show the skin on her leg, so should there be a law that says it's illegal for women to show the skin on her leg?

Morals are opinions and are different for different people and shouldn't be mixed with politics whatsoever.

 

Yet those are still called morals. There's no distinction between morals deduced from rationality and morals from religion, that is the problem.

 

Short answer: no.

Long answer:

We currently don't have any laws that are fully enforced. Not all drug users are caught, but I still think heroin should be illegal. Not all speeders get caught, but I still think we should have speed limits. People drive drunk and/or without a license, this should still be illegal. Not all rapist get caught, you get where I'm going by now.

Furthermore, to fully enforce a law the authorities would have to monitor everyone at all times. This would be an invasion of our privacy, so I don't think the goal should ever be to fully enforce the laws.

 

You forgot what you wrote?

Wtf? I was replying to Finn.

When you say "not all" you aren't being specific. If you look at the number of murderers and theives that are caught compared to the number of drug users or speeders that are caught, the difference is enormous. That is because in order to catch most drug users and speeders cameras would have to be everywhere and privacy must be intruded, and that will never happen, therefore these laws can't be enforced very well and the law does not have much effect since the rate at which the law breaker is caught is very small. People would be willing to take the small risk of getting caught if they really want to smoke weed or drive fast to get somewhere, therefore the law loses its effect and becomes futile.

 

Most "laws" are a matter of convenience. They give the enforcing power authority for punishment in case a situation does come up, but does not neccessarily dictate that one's life must be strictly regulated.

The simplest analogy I can think of is this:
My muscles allow me to run. Just because I have muscles, it doesn't mean that I should run all the time, but if the situation came up when I needed to run, they would surely come in handy.

 

its not realy hypocritical just stupid

 

What? So if you're ok with limited regulation, then you are basically allowing the majority of people to get away for the crime, which is pretty hypocritical of the law.

 

Hypocritical is the wrong word.
It'd be hypocrytical if they made the law & broke it frequently themselves but if they are unable to enforce it, it is just plain weakness.

 

I say not all because there aren't any specific statistics for how many get caught for which offense. Such statistics are always guestimations because of substantial dark figures, so I won't get more specific than that.

It seems your logic is "if X percent offenders get away with it, the law is pointless". What is the value of X in this case? Is it the same for all laws? Do you think that laws that aren't enforced at least X percent of the time are completely without meaning, and should therefore be abolished no matter what the law is about?

Should private import of drugs (currently smuggling) be legal because a lot of people currently get away with it?

 

Society cannot function without a basic legal system. In essence, no law can be fully enforced, but in no way should that lead to getting rid of laws.

 

How do YOU know the majority of murderers get caught?

You only see the ones they catch in the news. How can you really know that the majority of murderers get caught unless they publicize every single murder case solved or unsolved.

Really, I doubt the majority of murderers are caught.

And in response to your question:
I don't thinks it's hypocritical.
It's impossible to fully enforce a law but it doesn't mean it's morally right. Even if you knew you could get away with murder, I doubt that the majority of people would, or at least some people wouldn't.

 

This is the issue with the UN. On paper, other nations are supposed to uphold the laws passed by the UN, but in practice the nations are to afraid to because they fear war or economic sanctions. So the UN is essentially powerless.

 

There's nothing hypocritical about it. You have it backwards. Laws don't control the authority, rather the authority uses laws to control people.

 

As well, hypocritical is DEFINETLY not the right word.

 

The only way it could be hypocritical is if the people that MADE the law broke it THEMSELVES.

 

It is hypocritical a lot of sythe staff do it all the time.

 

Depends on the law.. CAN you inforce SOME rules but NOT others? How is this fair.

 

So lets say the government determines that abortion is murder etc and makes it illegal. Pregnant mothers then simply begin performing abortions in private. So if the government thinks that abortion is murder, then should they move privacy aside and begin 24/7 surveillance of the mothers to make sure they don't abort their baby? And if they don't go to these measures, are they practically letting murder happen? What about the people who do get caught performing abortion and end up having to spend jailtime, is it fair to them that there are people who committed the same "crime" who are still free to roam the earth?