As technology progresses, I've been increasingly thinking about Laws and the justice system.
To start with, it's an odd word to use; Law. It would imply, that like say Gravity, it would apply and be enforced all the time. Without fail or favour. It seems to me that we are increasingly reaching a point where it would in fact be trivial to do this.
Think about it. Everything on-line is monitored by a variety of folk. You're on CCTV from the moment you leave indoors. Staying inside is an option but the phones are tapped and they can just switch on your mobile's microphone whenever they feel bored. Hell, they can go old school and just stick remote surveillance on your place and watch the windows to know exactly what you're actually saying. Sound reconstruction is crazily advanced now. Or go quite modern and just shine a laser at your place to know what you own that you shouldn't. This is all assuming they don't want to get handsy and come a-knocking.
Now, that might sound slightly paranoid, with the "they" and the remarkably intrusive shit for no reason. And yet it happens. Constantly. Daily. Increasingly frequently.
So, Laws. As before, I would understand a Law to be something that would be enforced constantly. And it seems so easy to do so given that half of the above is done to you already whether you like it or not. For your own safety, of course.
Upon then pondering the myriad of Laws that I am apparently bound to obey, the natural conclusion would seem to be that I am a horrendous criminal, as well as likely everyone else I know. Take a simple motorway journey. Sit in the slow lane at 80. You'll be being overtaken by around 70% of traffic. Anywhere. Minimum. A GPS system to monitor this is a pittance. If even the simplest of traffic laws were enforced with 100% efficiency, then there would be stunning numbers of banned drivers overnight. You literally wouldn't be able to build the required jails and such quickly to deal with it.
This leads me to thinking that we may need to look at some of the crimes we punish and how we punish them. Honestly, consider what your potential fine or jail term is just from what you've done today. If you honestly think it's nothing then the chances are you're not familiar with all of the laws that apply to you. You certainly aren't skilled at thinking like a servant of the Law.
Which leads to enforcement. The classic scene of a dossier filled with pictures slapped in front of the guilty. You're very, very guilty. Of what? Well, what would you like to talk about? By default, you're having this conversation with someone who has access to at least the crudest methods of surveillance, and if so inclined likely others. This is an easy reality for anyone who wants to bother. Most of the time they won't need to as you're already spilling your guts. Do you think confessions and testimonies against others increase or decrease in a recession? Check it out, I wonder why those numbers are like that.
There are, surely, some Laws that universal enforcement would be laudable. Crimes against beings and to a relevant extent property should probably prevented and deterred. Just saying there's obviously some lines that most would like to draw.
To me, the current various justice systems seem to be lacking incredibly behind what current technology could potentially enforce. You would need to take an immediate look at every single law and consider the what 100% enforcement would do and if if such a thing is wise.
And then I think, I am a horrible old man. Surely brighter, younger minds have considered the shape of the society they are perpetuating into the future.
I look at the politicians and I wonder.
I look at the police and I wonder.
I look at the press and I wonder.
I wonder when they will all stop being so fucking stupid and help people.
(Im replying to OP before reading other's responses as to not get tainted by your opinions
Rather than thinking in terms of "Innocent until proven guilty." i think its more efficient and coherent to think of terms of "Innocent until you are proven economically viable to be prosecuted.". What does this mean?
Theres a bridge between Laws and Prosecution called Enforcement, and Enforcement is constrained by Efficiency and Manpower which are a basic equation that gives you Cost-Efficiency.
Traffic tickets are done either by automated cameras at stoplights (which generates FREE pillaging the citizens other than the initial costs of infrastructure and repairs) or say, speed traps at the bottom of hills; the latter poses a problem, in which it involves the time and attention of an officer which has a salary, so the commitment of said officer to given bottom-of-hill must be Cost-Efficient to have surplus value from the salary that is paid to the officer.
Why do rich people get off of jail time? (other than race issues, etc) Its because they can demonstrate to the Prosecution thru expensive lawyers that they generate more revenue OUTSIDE of jail than INSIDE jail... OUTSIDE of jail they generate revenue thru taxes, while INSIDE prison they only generate revenue thru proxy, thru the formal contracts of prison operators which pillage taxes. So the expenditures in court are merely a demonstration of how you will generate revenue to the system, thru your taxes or thru proxy.
Maybe i could ramble on and on, but i think my basic argument has come across, what do you guys think?