[127361]

Then they can start cracking down on the problem if it becomes widespread. But not when it isn't.

When the punishment far exceeds the loss caused by the "crime" then it is absolutely unfair, it undermines the rule of law itself.

Just being arrested over it could be considered punishment itself. Especially if it's a young person who gets into trouble, it is traumatic for them. It is also sending the message that the system itself is unjust, and he/she might not think twice before committing a real crime, e.g. real theft or fraud when he/she grows up.

[teddyh]

> When the punishment far exceeds the loss caused by the "crime" then it is absolutely unfair, it undermines the rule of law itself.

What about punishment as a deterrent? People can commit a crime many times and only get caught once. Should they be punished only up to the cost of the one crime they were caught doing?

[throwup238]

It’s not one crime, it’s all of them. The cost of enforcing one instance is more than the cost of all infractions, by all people. Enforcing such laws would turn the law into a farce.

[teddyh]

You also have to include the cost of all crimes which would (statistically) happen if the first crime was not enforced.

Take, for instance, knives. In some jurisdictions and places, IIUC, knives above a certain size are illegal to possess in a public place (unless properly packaged and in the process of being transported). The cost of someone simply possessing a knife is obviously zero, but enforcement is expensive. So why is it (putatively) enforced? Because people possessing knives can commit other crimes, such as attacks and robberies. That is, one crime is enforced not because breaking that law is itself a cost, but because it might lead to other crimes, which are costly.