A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they’re legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor’s office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What’s your view on the matter?
I’ve wanted to write a story about lawyers and prosecutorial discretion - I think a lot of it can be explored through fiction, to say nothing of the real world’s crazy case history.
Much as literalists may like the idea that “The law is the law”, and that it will always be enforced, it’s made up of humans who carry it out, and it’s by design that they each have their emotional flaws. The law as a machine would lose sight of its purpose as a means to improve society.
There’s another side to prosecutorial discretion where exclusion of consequences can provide favoritism to bad people, though, and that’s what gives me pause - but I don’t know how easy it would be for the law alone to remedy that, even by ending discretion.
That’s a point of view I don’t share, so would like to learn more about.
I believe that that’s how people who work in the system think about it too. They always try to guess the perpetrator’s motivation, and adjust the consequences as if that guess is correct. To me, it looks like a great benefit for those whom those in power can relate to easier: similar background, lingo, etc. And is horrible for those with a non-standard background or neurodiversity. As even when presented with the same facts, the latter receives a worse outcome.