> (or at least all law that carries the death penalty)
So, nearly no law - and in fact no law in countries without the death penalty?
So, nearly no law - and in fact no law in countries without the death penalty?
> which country...
Any country in which overwhelming nonlethal police force is not unfailingly on hand everywhere... so every country. Consider it from the state's perspective: lose control of the population or kill an unsympathetic troublemaker? History shows us which option is most frequently selected. Good on England for showing restraint, but that doesn't change the fact that every command is suffixed with "... or else I'll kill you."
"for law-breaking" is an over-generalization, but okay, not "no law." Merely "no law on the books."
> In order to arrest someone and send him to a Norwegian country-club prison, the threat or use of force must occur.
Lots of punitive measures beyond arresting someone. Wage garnishment, for example. Given how many employers refuse to employ felons out of hand, it's likely no force against your employer was necessary to get them on board with garnishing your wages either. Merely having the government label you a criminal can be a grievous overreach, in my book, for breaking many minor laws.
Cops rarely want the hassle and danger involved in arresting people.
> Force is, ultimately, lethal violence.
I think you're overgeneralizing to the point of making these terms meaningless. And that's coming from someone who considers tasers to be "lethal violence".
>I think you're overgeneralizing...
The threat of violence only works when it is credible, and it is only credible when consistently applied. Cops will kill you if you frustrate them in their escalation of force, they have to - otherwise the jig is up and law enforcement gets very difficult. There are cases where the state will intentionally look the other way so long as it remains low profile, because the price for publicly maintaining the status quo is just too expensive.