Selective enforcement

In law, selective enforcement occurs when government officials (such as police officers, prosecutors, or regulators) exercise discretion, which is the power to choose whether or how to punish a person who has violated the law. The biased use of enforcement discretion, such as that based on racial prejudice or corruption, is usually considered a legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law.

This concept is closely related to prosecutorial discretion. There is a divide between countries where prosecutions are inherently discretionary (known as the opportunity principle) and where prosecutions are mandatory (known as the legality principle).^[1] In addition, in some countries prosecutors operate independently with more discretion vs in a hierarchical system that require more conformity.^[2]

In some cases, selective enforcement may be desirable.^[3] For example, a verbal warning to a teenager may effectively alter their behavior without resorting to legal punishment and with the added benefit of reducing governmental legal costs. In other cases, selective enforcement may be inevitable. For example, it may be impractical for police officers to issue traffic tickets to every driver they observe exceeding the speed limit, so they may have no choice but to limit action to the most flagrant examples of reckless driving.

The dangers of selective enforcement lie in its potential to undermine the fundamental principles of justice and equality. When laws are enforced inconsistently, it can lead to arbitrary outcomes, favoritism, and unequal treatment under the law. Individuals from marginalized communities may face harsher penalties, while others escape accountability due to their social status or connections.^[4][5]