Many countries have laws which are widely broken and selectively enforced, or which are easy to frame people for. In those cases, whether you are targeted and punished is a judgment call made by certain people in power, which in practice means that it depends mainly on not pissing off or threatening the wrong people, and on how effectively you would be expected to defend yourself (ie wealth and connections).
Many countries have laws which are widely broken and selectively enforced,
For example lots of Iranian people drink, have casual sex and there’s a surprisingly active gay scene. The laws are only ever enforced when they need an easy way to crack down on protesters. That doesn’t indicate any sincere belief on the part of the regime in the moral seriousness of those crimes, any more than if someone you disliked sent the health inspectors round.
Edit Better example: If you looked only at law you would think the vast majority of the American public massively disapproved of recreational drug use. Whereas they are widely tolerated, socially accepted in many contexts and the laws are enforced selectively.
Well, I absolutely agree with all that you just said. But still, knowing what sentences the judge can dole out is important. The problem with mob-rousing stuff such as apostasy… or Frankenstein-monster raising, or being Black, or a Hugonot, or an adulterer, depending on context… is that you could easily be subjected to “mob justice”, and there would be impunity for your murderers: Pontius Piwatus keeps his hands cwean, and evewyone is happy (the dead can’t compwain).
The law does not even bound what the judge can do. It’s just words. If you have a good model of the role of the law, knowing it is valuable, but I think your model is so bad you are made worse off by studying the law. I am very certain in this example, but I was completely serious when I said it in general.
An exercise: (1) make lists of the ways the law might under- and over-estimate the punishments for apostasy; (2) research what actually happens to apostates.
That’s a very puzzling comment… care to elaborate?
Many countries have laws which are widely broken and selectively enforced, or which are easy to frame people for. In those cases, whether you are targeted and punished is a judgment call made by certain people in power, which in practice means that it depends mainly on not pissing off or threatening the wrong people, and on how effectively you would be expected to defend yourself (ie wealth and connections).
For example lots of Iranian people drink, have casual sex and there’s a surprisingly active gay scene. The laws are only ever enforced when they need an easy way to crack down on protesters. That doesn’t indicate any sincere belief on the part of the regime in the moral seriousness of those crimes, any more than if someone you disliked sent the health inspectors round.
Edit Better example: If you looked only at law you would think the vast majority of the American public massively disapproved of recreational drug use. Whereas they are widely tolerated, socially accepted in many contexts and the laws are enforced selectively.
Well, I absolutely agree with all that you just said. But still, knowing what sentences the judge can dole out is important. The problem with mob-rousing stuff such as apostasy… or Frankenstein-monster raising, or being Black, or a Hugonot, or an adulterer, depending on context… is that you could easily be subjected to “mob justice”, and there would be impunity for your murderers: Pontius Piwatus keeps his hands cwean, and evewyone is happy (the dead can’t compwain).
I would be a wot happier if this dead had staid dead and uncompwaining...
The law does not even bound what the judge can do. It’s just words.
If you have a good model of the role of the law, knowing it is valuable, but I think your model is so bad you are made worse off by studying the law. I am very certain in this example, but I was completely serious when I said it in general.
An exercise: (1) make lists of the ways the law might under- and over-estimate the punishments for apostasy; (2) research what actually happens to apostates.