[int_19h]

Any instance of selective enforcement being necessary is ipso facto evidence of a bad law. This is completely orthogonal to the matter of the world not being black and white - you're right, it's not, but a good law recognizes that fact, and laws can also be amended as needed.

[dragonwriter]

> Any instance of selective enforcement being necessary is ipso facto evidence of a bad law.

All laws are in some degree bad; perfect laws do not exist.

Some laws are useful and produce more good than harm in the concrete situation in which they exist.

Should laws be improved where possible? Yes. Does the need for selective enforcement indicate a problem? Yes. Does it provide sufficient information to determine the precise form of a better law to replace the one it shows a problem with? Very rarely.

[1718627440]

> Any instance of selective enforcement being necessary is ipso facto evidence of a bad law.

By that measure every law is a bad law.

[ponow]

Legislation is much worse than organically derived common law, for the common law comprises decisions that apply to particular conditions with all their details while the former are mere idealizations.

[klez]

> Any instance of selective enforcement being necessary is ipso facto evidence of a bad law.

Yep, and while we fix that bad law we need judges to be able to say "I won't apply that" or "I won't sentence you to jail for this". That's kinda the point.

[int_19h]

That's what jury nullification is for, in principle.

Allowing judges to not enforce bad laws turns them into unelected legislators. It's also worse from a corruption perspective because a single bought judge in the right place is much more cost effective than having to buy a new randomly selected jury at every trial.