We thereby make it easier to convict wrongdoers—including manipulators, coercers, planners, and inciters—whose wrongdoing is difficult to prove. But some rules are very much essential. If rules are meant to be broken then there would be an other name for rules i.
Thus, rules are kept for that if anyone tries to break it then he would have to think twice.
The second possibility is that law-makers seek to achieve those ends primarily—ideally—by means of conviction. What is the case for the identification principle? If it is a crime to possess information likely to be useful to terrorists, it is much easier for prosecutors to secure the conviction of those identified as having planned terrorist attacks—much easier, that is, than it would have been if planning itself had been criminalized.
I shouldn't accept that type of rule that is against our thinking or against to our nation, if take the example of British government they imposed lot of rule over the Indian that was not necessary like toilet act, English become compulsory on that time, temple tax pits India act.
Rules is made to regulate the system to achieve the individual's or group's goal. This worry is expressed with particular force in the literature on criminal law.