As an amazing example of such thought, here's a story about a couple of disturbed teens in Canada. They engaged in something I can't imagine doing to a living creature: they microwaved a cat to death. That's horrible, and some important and valid punishments were applied, including a ban on pets in their home.
Here's the example of idealists imposing ideas that don't work, just because they like them.
According to court ordered psychological assessments, video games were not found to have directly encouraged the boys' actions. But barring their access to such games was nonetheless a recommendation put forward in the assessments.
It was also suggested that the teens' cellphone access be limited to work and calls to family. But youth court Judge Shauna Miller said that condition would have served no purpose.
Um, what? Video games weren't involved, directly or by psychological assessment, yet they're banned from playing them. Someone just thought it contributes to violence in some unrelated fashion, so that had to be stopped. Limiting cell phone calls? They didn't call each other to arrange this heinous act, and they didn't use cell phone signals to harm the animal, they used a microwave. Shouldn't they be banned from having a microwave in the house instead?
When idealism overrides pragmatism, society receives no benefit.