[munchler]

I would suggest the US is slightly better. At least we don’t have an unenforceable law that offers the illusion of privacy protections.

[datsci_est_2015]

There’s an implicit assumption in this snark that the only purpose of a law is to create legal consequences (a subclass of error that’s very common on this forum, some type of “literalism”).

This is IMO a bit shortsighted: laws impact culture, laws represent ideals worth striving for, and in a democracy, laws help define the type of society in which the people would like to live.

A law’s utility is not limited to its ability to be enforced. In fact, in a democracy, when a law is not enforced, it is a strong signal that the will of the people is not being carried out by those charged with enforcement. See: the current USDOJ.

[lo_zamoyski]

"Will of the people" aside, the law is indeed a teacher. It sets a norm and an expectation even when not enforced.

[ejpir]

how is having NO law better? I'd say 12 out of 20, is better than zero.

[gretch]

When enforcement is this shoddy, it’s easy to create corruption through selective enforcement.

“We don’t have the resources to go after everyone, so we must prioritize” - but it turns out there’s a bias to the selection process…

I believe that justice is only true when we are all treated equally under the law.

[irasigman]

I think you mean 8 out of 20. Fewer than half.