[iaseiadit]

I'm of the belief that if a law exists but isn't being enforced, the only correct course of action is to eliminate the law or start enforcing it. Otherwise, you enforce the law inconsistently, and you reinforce the notion that laws don't need to be followed.

Technology can help with consistent enforcement. Stop light cameras, in my experience, are more impartial and objective than police officers.

Where I live in the U.S., crime is prevalent. Many laws are flouted by criminals and rarely enforced by the police or district attorneys. The system has become a farce. It's better to enforce the laws consistently, or if they're not needed, to eliminate them.

[WalterBright]

The idea is to keep unenforced laws on the books, so they can be selectively enforced against one's political enemies.

[hi-v-rocknroll]

Doesn't really scale well. What you're looking for is community-led policing combined with sensible, few surprises, high community-visibility and -participation legislative processes rather than revenue-led or self-led policing.

[flawsofar]

look up “broken windows policing”

[iaseiadit]

I'm familiar. Completely transformed New York City in the 1990s for the better.

But I'm not suggesting that every law is good. If a law is not enforceable or not a net positive for the community, change it or get rid of it. But don't enforce it inconsistently, and don't apply it to certain people and not others depending on the whims of the police and the district attorneys and their personal predilections and politics.