daswig

Murder laws are selectively enforced all the time. It's not a matter of who the persons involved are, but rather the circumstances of the case. For example, in cases where the prosecution thinks that a successful case can not be made, or a legal justification exists, charges will not be filed. That is done in the INTEREST of justice, so that people are not prosecuted unjustly. Think about it. Suppose somebody shoots and kills an armed intruder in their house. Should they be forced to go through a trial for either murder or manslaughter, at considerable expense to themselves and the government, when the prosecutor knows that the outcome of such a trial would be a not guilty verdict because of the circumstances?

Now if the law is facially neutral, but enforced in a discriminatory manner (for example, if only homosexuals are charged with sodomy, and heterosexuals are never charged with sodomy), there's legal grounds to seek review the constitutionality of the law itself on the grounds that it's enforced in a discriminatory manner. Different levels of appellate scrutiny apply from a facially discriminatory law, but the law can indeed be struck down if it's used in a discriminatory manner.


FYI: In the state where I reside, the sex crimes laws are enforced in an OVERWHELMING majority against heterosexuals, NOT homosexuals. Why? Probably because heterosexuals commit far more of the crimes in question than homosexuals do. I've personally seen dozens of cases where sodomy charges were brought against a heterosexual, virtually all of them involving mala in se crimes, and most of them involving crimes against children. I've NEVER personally seen a case where such charges were brought against a homosexual, either for a mala in se or malum prohibitorum crime. Is it possible that a homosexual could be charged with sodomy here? Sure. But from what I've seen, it doesn't happen often.