| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebTopicList" |
|---|
Allowing Laws to be Broken: A Restriction on Freedom | |
<
< | At its core, each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits, which we deem necessary, through the enactment of these laws. Bringing a beneficial and desired result to the nation is society's goal and ought to be the government's when enacting laws. Very few citizens read the laws and only a fraction of those, or the rest of the population for that matter, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. In order to test the efficacy and desirability of a law, and therefore whether it should remain law, a law must be enforced. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Enforcing a law sparsely, or sometimes not at all, deprives society of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that the population may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement. | >
> | At its core, each law represents at least a slight infringement of our rights. We give power to our government to provide certain social benefits, which we deem necessary, through the enactment of these laws. Very few citizens read the laws and only a fraction of those, or the rest of the population for that matter, can understand the convoluted jargon constituting a law. The population can only evaluate the acceptability of a law through the real-world experiment of common experience. Enforcing a law sparsely, or sometimes not at all, deprives society of its only practical test of that law. The government has made a statement of power by enacting a law that the population may or may not find acceptable, taken away the populace's ability to judge the law, and maintained it as an official policy held over the head of the nation with the omnipresent threat of enforcement. | | | | |
<
< | A relaxed enforcement instills a false belief of governmental leniency in the populace. This generates and encourages lackadaisical behavior in the masses' adherence to the laws and creates a populace too disinterested to bother checking the government's infringement of individual rights. By providing some 'leniency', the government diverts the population's attention away from other laws that impinge upon individual rights more substantially and eventually desensitize the population leaving them apathetic to the newfound restrictions upon freedom. Unacceptable laws are thus enacted and kept on record through the governmental bribe to the populace of low-level enforcement. Establishing the power to impinge upon rights allows for the expansion of governmental control of our everyday lives. | >
> | Simple Real World Example | | | | |
<
< | Simple Real World Examples
A few small penalty laws are helpful as examples. They are relatively simple and illustrate the same principles underlying laws that are more restrictive. Most states have open container laws prohibiting the possession of an open container of alcohol in a public space. However, due to a combination of the desires of the population and the police, a compromise arose. Place the open container in a brown-bag and no violation ensues in the majority of jurisdictions. When we do not like the laws, we find a way to cheat the effect. While the immediate result is operative, it creates a dangerous mindset: follow the rules you like and not the ones you dislike. If the goal of law is to establish a desirable system to live within, this is not a sustainable creed. Laws lose their meaning if they can be ignored. Citizens lose interest when new laws are enacted, always believing there will be a loophole somewhere, and are therefore not paying enough attention when the government actually decides to restrict a fundamental liberty.
The same ramifications are present when looking at another example: jaywalking. Keeping our roads, as well as the pedestrians, safe is a sound justification for the law, but the utter disregard by the population and the police make it a non-entity. By retaining laws such as this, the government has established that it can impose legal restrictions on our liberty that society neither agrees with nor finds desirable. Through the simple act of non-enforcement, the government has increased its power to impose restrictions on its citizens at its will. | >
> | A small penalty law is helpful as an example and illustrates the same principles underlying laws that are more restrictive. Most states have open container laws prohibiting the possession of an open container of alcohol in a public space. However, due to a combination of the desires of the population and the police, a compromise arose. Place the open container in a brown-bag and no violation ensues in the majority of jurisdictions. While the immediate result is operative, it creates a dangerous mindset: follow the rules you like and not the ones you dislike. If the goal of law is to establish a desirable system to live within, this is not a sustainable creed. Laws lose their meaning if they can be ignored. Citizens lose interest when new laws are enacted, always believing there will be a loophole somewhere, and are therefore not paying enough attention when the government actually decides to restrict a fundamental liberty. | | |
Possible Solution | | | Practicability | |
<
< | When applying the above solution to our simple examples, opponents will indubitably argue impracticability. Conceding that perfect enforcement is impracticable - although with the advances in privacy infringing technology (e.g. cameras, satellites, etc.) it is an ever-approaching reality - there is no argument that enforcement cannot be increased. We need not even go into covert methods of enforcement. Simply put, every time a law is broken in front of an officer of the law, it ought to be enforced. Violations of the law, especially the low-penalty ones mentioned above, occur all of the time. Only through actual enforcement will the full power of the government's restrictions and ability to restrict register with the ordinary citizen. | >
> | When applying the above solution, opponents will indubitably argue impracticability. Conceding that perfect enforcement is impracticable - although with the advances in privacy infringing technology (e.g. cameras, satellites, etc.) it is an ever-approaching reality - there is no argument that increasing enforcement is impossible. For example, every time a law is broken in front of an officer of the law, it can and ought to be enforced. Violations of the law, especially ones like the low-penalty example above, occur all of the time. Only through actual enforcement will the full power of the government's restrictions and ability to restrict register with the ordinary citizen. | | | | |
<
< | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | Allowing laws to be broken is a subtle mechanism for a government to further restrict the liberties of its citizens. In order for the citizenry to constrain this power, it must have knowledge of the government's policies. The population can properly voice its agreement or dissent only with a practical understanding of the laws and their effects. If a government truly wishes for an informed populace, it should compulsively enforce its laws. | >
> | Separation of Powers Violation?
Compelled enforcement has a more serious obstacle to overcome in the doctrine of separation of powers. The legislature is responsible for making laws. It is the duty of the executive branch to enforce those laws. This division allows the executive to check the power of the legislature by choosing which laws to enforce and with what level of rigor. If we force the executive branch’s hand, we not only eliminate its discretionary abilities, but also remove an important restriction on the legislature’s power.
Removing some of the power vested in the executive is a definite problem with this solution. However, the end effect may still be positive for the population because it transfers the responsibility of checking the legislature from the executive branch to the people. When the rule makers are directly responsible for enforcement, the people will hold the legislature accountable for unacceptable laws because there is no intermediary.
Dangers of Creating Social Upheaval
Increasing law enforcement will undoubtedly upset the population. If this instigates an increase in disobedience to the laws of society by a disinterested public rather than a demand for more just laws, then the solution will be an inexcusable failure. However, it is not clear that this disobedient mindset is any more dangerous than what a “lenient” government creates by allowing its laws to be broken.
Allowing the population to disobey small laws may possibly satiate the “rebellious” nature within the grand majority of us. If this is the case, then such leniency may actually inspire more obedience to the larger, more serious, laws for the average law-abiding citizen. On the other hand, leniency in one area may trigger an individual’s belief in his/her ability to get away with more law breaking. This result triggers the same disobedience feared above from increased law enforcement.
Further behavioral and psychological research into this area will prove invaluable to promoting a better government. We must look at not only the social effects of different levels of enforcement, but also to the individual and neurological effects to have a consummative perspective from which we can begin to weigh the pros and cons of such policies.
Conclusion | | | | |
>
> | Allowing laws to be broken is a subtle mechanism for a government to further restrict the liberties of its citizens. In order for the citizenry to constrain this power, it must have knowledge of the government's policies. The population can properly voice its agreement or dissent only with a practical understanding of the laws and their effects. While compulsive law enforcement may not be the perfect solution, it will create a better-informed populace, which is a significant step towards an improved form of government. | | | -- MattDavisRatner - 27 Mar 2008
|
|