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 has to be a bit of judgment on the enforcement side. Like say you are underage drinking next to your house and you accidentally break your skateboard so you start yelling and you don’t see the cops on the corner. They come to make sure everyone/your roommates are and generally feel safe but don’t give you any tickets. They don’t care about the obvious intoxication or noise and just want to make sure people are safe. That’s the discretion I want in LE
I see what you mean, on an individual officer level.
The question refers more to officially declared policy by the prosecutor: “we will no longer prosecute behaviour X, even though it’s illegal”
Gotcha, when it’s congress saying no, I don’t think they should prosecute because that (should) represent what the people want. Although this is how I generally feel, the US congress is broken so with the current state I don’t feel very strongly here.
When it’s a federal law and a state passes something that says it’s ok, it should be ok in that state. Think abortion, pot, etc. I do think those should be legal everywhere though.
Defying executive orders is definitely ok. Especially with the god like powers the supreme court gave the president.