Comment on Yale Posting It's Ls
Schmoo@slrpnk.net 1 day agoAll of those laws are unequally enforced. Anti money laundering laws are applied only to the subjugated socioeconomic group (drug dealers belonging to the working class, etc.). The dominant socioeconomic group gets their children protected, their rape victims to receive justice, their human rights defended. The subjugated socioeconomic group rarely benefits from these laws, which is why thousands of rape kits sit in warehouses never being investigated, why children born into poverty are more often separated from their parents and institutionalized rather than receiving the help they need, and why human rights are routinely violated without consequence.
The people making such laws can sometimes intend for them to be universal, but such people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of laws, and it never quite pans out that way in practice.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
There’s a massive gulf between “the purpose of a law existing” and “a law being enforced”.
I know you don’t work in the field because you have no idea how absolutely, ridiculously hilarious this statement is. :D
Also, calling drug dealers “working class” is certainly a vibe…
Are you from the US?
The laws ARE universal. But because humans are humans (therefore: shitty), they’re not being universally or equally enforced.
And none of this changes the fact that laws do not, in fact, “exist for [no] other purpose except to protect the dominant socioeconomic group”.
stephan262@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“The purpose of a system is what it does.”
You are right. Laws are universal and apply equally to everyone. The problem is the systems that exist to create and apply those laws. There are far too many cases of the law being selective in who it protects and who it punishes for me to believe that it upholds fairness. I also don’t believe it’s a fundamental human failing, I think it’s functioning exactly as its corrupt creators intended.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
No. *There are too many cases where the interpretation of law is selective", and/or “there are too many cases where the enforcement of law is being selective”. There are no laws (that I know of, correct me if I’m wrong) that say “if you’re rich, this doesn’t apply to you”, or something like that.
And this is where we disagree. Because, to me, thinking that every single lawmaker in the history of humanity (we have laws that date back thousands of years and are just copy-pasted between countries) was writing laws with malicious intent is some form of paranoidal insanity on par with “lizard people are controlling the government”.
Schmoo@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
It’s not about the intent of each individual cog involved in the creation and application of the law, but the intent for which the system of laws and hierarchies were created. Plenty of reform-minded people or naive pro-establishment folks participate in the legal system with good intentions, and sometimes find success reducing the harm that it causes, but that doesn’t change that the system continues to uphold class society and was created for that purpose. The effect of our system of laws and hierarchical institutions is the preservation of a system of division between distinct classes, and since I have yet to see a legal system that does not do this in some form I have concluded that this is the fundamental nature of laws.
stephan262@lemmy.world 1 day ago
When I said the law is selective in enforcement I meant the system of law. The courts, law enforcement, and political “tough on crime” attitudes. That is very much on me for the lack of clarity and I apologise for it.
The perpetuation and propagation of a fundamentally corrupt and unfair system does not require everyone that upholds it to be corrupt, it needs only for them to be willing to participate in it. Perhaps they don’t see the fundamental inequality, or maybe they believe they can reform it from the inside. I don’t think the system can be reformed enough to be truly just and fair. I think it needs to fundamentally rebuilt.
In the UK the system of law is the same one that oversaw the enforcement of serfdom and of slavery. It is a system where judges can enforce arbitrary rules of conduct and dress in ‘their’ courtroom. A system where judges are too often treated with deference instead of scrutiny, despite blatant bias towards upholding the status quo.
It’s distinctly possible that I’m being a naive idealist, and that this is as good and fair as the system can be. It’s entirely possible that my ideal system is entirely impossible. It’s just that I want to hope for a better world, and I have too much doubt in the capability of reforming things.