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 think there should be flexibility in sentencing but not really enforcement. This kind of thing can be used for good or evil but I don’t think its beneficial to have esoteric rules to be kept on the books for decades, waiting for the wrong person to abuse them. It’s better to levy fines for sodomy (as an example) than to wait for that one dickhead to imprison people for life under the same statute.