"They'll just break the rules anyway"

amother

Cyan

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 8:04 am

I've never understood this logic, that we shouldn't have too many rules about [fill in the blank] because people who really want to break the rules are just going to do it anyway. I've heard conservatives say it about gun control and liberals say it about marijauna. I've heard parents say it about junk food and screens. I've heard it said about various chumrahs.

Now, that's not to say there aren't good reasons for not having too many rules surrounding the things on the above list, because there ARE; but "if you have too many rules about x, people are still going to do it and it's not going to make a difference" seems rather silly. By that logic, why have any rules at all? Killers are still going to kill, theives are still going to steal, fraudsters are still going to commit fraud! Kids are still going to try to do whatever it is their parents don't allow! So why bother ever having any laws or rules? If you do think that certain rules are not a good idea (either because they won't work or will have the opposite effect) how do you decide what kinds of rules ARE worth having?

leah233

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 8:12 am

It is usually said about very specific rules that some believe (1) those rules cannot be enforced and (2)the efforts to do so themself will end up being counterproductive.

There will always be criminals but fighting crime doesn't increase crime. Whereas if people are going to do X anyway and X is a quasi crime at most fighting it won't help and will increase other crimes.

To give an example the prohibition was abolished because it was seen the meeting the criteria above.

TeachersNotebook

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 7:24 pm

There is a similar concept in halacha. Rabbanim can't decree something which the public most likely won't, or can't, follow, even if it technically would be the right course according to halacha. (Obviously this concept has very defined parameters.) The point is that rules are not made in a vacuum of right and wrong. They are made in the context of life. Lawmakers and law enforcement will have to deal with the ramifications of the rules much more than they have to deal with the rule itself, once it's made.

Raisin

Thu, Nov 09 2017, 2:53 am

If you ban addictive items like alcohol, etc. people will still want them and pay to get them even illegally. Prohibition didn't work in the 30s and led to the rise in organised crime. Portugal decriminalised drug use and this led to a decrease in use. http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/dr.....aight

Guns are not really addictive in that sense though so I'm not sure if that rule applies. Sure, a serious criminal will still get hold of a gun but a lot of the gun deaths and crimes in the USA are not committed by serious criminals. eg a toddler shooting himself by accident, Sandy hook. So while increased gun legislation would not eliminate gun deaths altogether, it would certainly lower it. (as it has in other countries)