The problem with precise law enforcement is that the legal system is incredibly complex. There's a tagline that ‘everybody's a criminal’; I don't know if that's necessarily true but I do definitely believe that a large number of ‘innocent’ people are criminals (by the letter of the law) without their knowledge. Because we usually only bother to prosecute crimes if some obvious harm has been done this doesn't cause a lot of damage in practice (though it can be abused), but if you start enforcing the letter of every law precisely it suddenly becomes the obligation of every citizen to know every law — in a de facto way, rather than just the de jure way we currently have as a consequence of ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’. So an increase of precision in law enforcement must be preceded by a drastic simplification of the law itself — not a bad thing by any means, but also not an easy (or, perhaps, possible) task.

▲

ff317 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The reason speed limits make such a great example for these arguments is because they're a preemptive law. Technically, nobody is directly harmed by speeding. We outlaw speeding on the belief that it statistically leads to and/or is correlated with other harms. Contrast this to a law against assault or theft: in those kinds of cases, the law makes the direct harm itself illegal.

Increasing the precision of enforcement makes a lot more sense for direct-harm laws. You won't find anyone seriously arguing that full 100% enforcement of murder laws is a bad idea. It's the preemptive laws, which were often lazily enforced, especially when no real harm resulted from the action, where this all gets complicated. Maybe this is the distinction to focus on.

▲

hamdingers an hour ago | parent [-]

This unwritten distinction exists only to allow targeted enforcement in service of harassment and oppression. There is no upside (even if getting away with speeding feels good). We should strive to enforce all laws 100% of the time as that is the only fair option.

If a law being enforced 100% of the time causes problems then rethink the law (i.e. raise the speed limit, or design the road slower).

	▲	gbalduzzi 24 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> If a law being enforced 100% of the time causes problems then rethink the law (i.e. raise the speed limit, or design the road slower). Isn't this the point of the whole conversation we are having here? Laws on copyright were not created for current AI usage on open source project replication. They need to change, because if they are perfectly enforced by the letter, they result in actions that are clearly against the intent of the law itself. The underlying problem is that the world changes too fast for the laws so be fair immediately
	▲	namlem 20 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		There is an upside: oppressing people who consistently engage in antisocial behavior is good and necessary.
	▲	airstrike 34 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		A system that solves for absolute compliance in every individual case does not result in the emergence of a fairer society. There are numerous cases, both in history and in fiction, that demonstrate as much.
	▲	encom 17 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If speed limits were automated rigidly enforced 100% of the time, it would be impossible to drive. >only to allow targeted enforcement in service of harassment and oppression That's absurd hyperbole. A competent policeman will recognise the difference between me driving 90 km/h on a 80 km/h road because I didn't notice the sign. And me driving 120 km/h out of complete disregard for human life. Should I get a fine for driving 90? Yea, probably. Is it a first time offence? Was anyone else on the road? Did the sign get knocked down? Is it day or night? Have I done this 15 times before? Is my wife in labour in the passenger seat? None of those are excuses, but could be grounds for a warning instead.

▲

RobRivera 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Precise law enforcement would motivate political will to proactively law change to be more precise and appropriate, or tuned, to the public sentiment.

Imprecise law enforcement enables political office holders to arbitrarily leverage the law to arrest people they label as a political enemy, e.g. Aaron Swartz.

If everyone that ever shared publications outside the legal subscriber base was precisely arrested, charged, and punished, I dont think the punishment amd current legal terrain regarding the charges leveraged against him would have lasted.

But this is a feature, not a bug.

▲

c-linkage 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Code is Law is pretty much demonstrates that it is not possible to precisely define law.

https://www.fxleaders.com/news/2025/10/29/code-is-law-sparks...

Additionally, law is not logical. Law is about justice and justice is not logical.

	▲	pc86 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"Law is about justice" is one of those things a good professor gets every 1L to raise their hands in agreement to before spending the next semester proving why that's 100% not the case.