Why I want to do more than just cover my nut...

While I understand where you’re coming from completely, I don’t think I can agree that the example you give makes it clear that “at some intersection of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of Black there is no law.” After all, Black does state that “an arrest is more law than no arrest…an indictment is more law than none…etc.” I find it somewhat hard to believe that five years of probation can be equated to a complete lack of law. The fact that police invested time in going undercover for five months to investigate the drug dealing shows evidence of some intended enforcement. The press covered the case—there ought to be some value of deterrence in that. As Black also says: “if a decision is against the plaintiff and he appeals, this is more law, and a reversal in his behalf is more as well.” Law is seemingly operating in absolute values here—more action in either direction equals more law. I would assume that more public notice of the situation leads to more law as well, or at least more interpretations of law.

I see what you’re getting at—that the law has a tendency to skim over the indiscretions of those higher privileged. True, this very well could make for fewer consequences for those individuals, but unless they completely get away with their crimes then the consequence is not null. Even if seems like the situation “is not the end of the world,” it still happened. Also, to maybe get a little abstract, I wouldn’t consider even a “victimless” crime to be completely victimless. There are always indirect victims to crime (imagine the ripple effect of a DUI on a person’s family)—maybe even consider the effect on the accused himself. (Side note: maybe society is even worse off if slack toward privileged criminals is condoned). In this way I think Black’s theory still holds regardless of whether the crime was technically victimless.

It is unsettling to think that people might be able to buy themselves out of prosecution, conviction or consequences, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t get caught. A poor man could also avoid the law. Certainly wealth breeds security, but only to a certain extent. I do see what you mean though—there is a correlation between wealth, power and influence. I think that “chang(ing) the reality of how the law behaves” would require those who cover their nuts ten times over to relinquish that privilege. (This is why I think Eben suggests that a person cover his nut and do good—do good by not covering it excessively for his own protection).

It’s a hard call and I’m sure everyone we know has different ideas about what is the right way to approach the problem, but as I said, I find it very unlikely that law would cease to exist at a certain point because there will always be victims, even if they only exist because law was not applied. Even if a Columbia student feels little consequence of his conviction for dealing drugs, the crime and the situation still happened and will ultimately affect society.

-- AnneFox- 11 Apr 2012