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?
It shouldn’t be done. The law is the law and giving enforcement the power to choose which laws to enforce and which not to, even if the intentions are good, opens the door for the same attitude to be used in the future with ill intent. Exhibit 1: the US right now.
The voters use it to excuse the abuse of power for their preferred party, which creates an acceleration of the abuse too. For example Obama ordered marihuana not to be prosecuted if I recall correctly, liberals applauded it. Trump if an agency or organization doesn’t enforce the rule he likes withdraws funding, conservatives applaud this. To most observers these are two sides of the same coin: It’s using the power of the executive to legislate, when the executive should be a manager while congress are the bosses. So the executive branches should not have a say in which laws get enforced, they should enforce them and let the judiciary sort it.
Hmm, I can see how it creates a dynamic where the executive, in increasing magnitude, starts to ignore the other branches of government. With a loud minority of the voters encouraging it. Just to spite the previous administration. - “Now it’s our time” reasoning.
Precisely how many conservatives excuse Trumps actions. And they are right, the executive branch has been accumulating power for decades and enforcing rules selectively. Trump is simply more transparent about it than any other before him.