Laws enumerate both punidhment and ways to do things. The latter can prevent crimes.

E.g. there is a law saying you cant serve alcohol to minors. That in and of itself doesnt prevent beyond threat of punishment if caught.

There is also a law saying you have to check ids. Procedures like that do have a preventitive effect.

> they don’t prevent crime, they just enumerate it.

This isn't always correct and is rather myopic.

Quite often laws will issue punishments for some behaviors, but also issue things like funding for programs that work on the roots of why particular crimes occur.

Now, laws that punish post ad hoc are always easier to measure and see, because it's much harder to prove that you prevented something that only had a probability of happening in the first place.

> Quite often laws will issue punishments for some behaviors, but also issue things like funding for programs that work on the roots of why particular crimes occur.

That still requires enforcement. The existence of a law does not imply existence of enforcement, much less wide-spread enforcement (see e.g. wage theft, auto breakins, petty theft, etc).

Two categories, with no statement that this was all categories. And, one of the two categories are not law breakers at all, merely held in check by fear of laws.

Note I was responding to someone who effectly said laws don't prevent crime, and citing ways they do. Understand the context. My statement was not a 200 page dissertation on "those who might break laws" and a deep dive into societal ethics, etc.

This story is about a dude who drove 30–40 hours to kill somebody and still had a quarter ounce of meth left in his Jeep when he got caught. He should serve some time.