The point of the law is to discourage behaviour that we have agreed as a society should be discouraged.
In some cases, the person who might have an adverse impact of a decision is someone other than the person taking it. And sometimes the impact of that decision may be irreversible.
In those kinds of circumstances, we, as a society have to ask whether the externalised risks (i.e. the risk that person A imposes on person B, against their will or knowledge) outweigh the curtailing of rights (i.e. the right to do whatever I like) that a restriction would impose.
While I don't think that laws are the only way to prevent someone from doing something bad, I will leave you with a potential downside to what you're suggesting:
Lets say someone is rich/powerful, would the rules apply the same to them in your scenario? Should they?
> The point of the law is to discourage behaviour that we have agreed as a society should be discouraged.
Are there any studies that demonstrate that people will not engage in undesired behaviors solely because they're illegal as opposed to what they feel is right due to their upbringing and/or education?
For example, I'll wear a seat belt while riding or driving a vehicle regardless of whether there's a law that makes it a requirement.
> The point of the law is to discourage behaviour that we have agreed as a society should be discouraged.
That's the principle that underlies our current system, yes. But it's not the only possible principle on which to base a legal system. The alternate principle I am proposing is basically that the point of the law is to make clear exactly what actions cause harm and will cause those perpetrating them to suffer penalties.
> Lets say someone is rich/powerful, would the rules apply the same to them in your scenario?
In some cases, the person who might have an adverse impact of a decision is someone other than the person taking it. And sometimes the impact of that decision may be irreversible.
In those kinds of circumstances, we, as a society have to ask whether the externalised risks (i.e. the risk that person A imposes on person B, against their will or knowledge) outweigh the curtailing of rights (i.e. the right to do whatever I like) that a restriction would impose.
While I don't think that laws are the only way to prevent someone from doing something bad, I will leave you with a potential downside to what you're suggesting:
Lets say someone is rich/powerful, would the rules apply the same to them in your scenario? Should they?