Should We Have Laws Despite Lawbreakers?

[Left Coast]

Countries all around the world have laws which their citizens break all the time. Here in the US, we have speed limits which, truth be told, I may have violated myself once or twice. This goes on even with the most serious, uncontroversial laws - people commit murder and rape every day as well, despite it being against the law.

So since criminals are just going to commit crime anyway, should we even have any of these laws at all?

We often hear this line of reasoning from the Right when the conversation is about gun control. In fairness, I also hear this from folks on the Left when talking about abortion, or the drug war.

In my view, this reasoning is overly simplistic and requires some nuance. First, while laws don't prevent all crime, as a general rule they do deter some. The degree to which they deter a behavior depends on a) how the law is enforced, and b) what the penalty for violating the law is. Quite often, it seems to me that laws themselves take the blame for being ineffective deterrents of behavior when actually the ineffectiveness is a function of a failure at a) and/or b).

I would also add that a law's effectiveness is a function of c) its nature or scope. If a law's scope is so broad that it can't be feasibly enforced, it is likely to be ineffective. If a country, for example, made walking illegal, that would be impossible to enforce because nearly everyone would break it.

What am I missing? Do you disagree with my criteria? Should we stop using the simplistic argument that we shouldn't have a law because criminals will just do it anyway?

 

[Stanyon]

If everyone were like Mister Roger's we wouldn't need laws.

 

[Left Coast]

If everyone were like Mister Roger's we wouldn't need laws.

If everyone were like fish we could breathe underwater.

 

[joe1776]

Countries all around the world have laws which their citizens break all the time. Here in the US, we have speed limits which, truth be told, I may have violated myself once or twice. This goes on even with the most serious, uncontroversial laws - people commit murder and rape every day as well, despite it being against the law.

So since criminals are just going to commit crime anyway, should we even have any of these laws at all?

We often hear this line of reasoning from the Right when the conversation is about gun control. In fairness, I also hear this from folks on the Left when talking about abortion, or the drug war.

In my view, this reasoning is overly simplistic and requires some nuance. First, while laws don't prevent all crime, as a general rule they do deter some. The degree to which they deter a behavior depends on a) how the law is enforced, and b) what the penalty for violating the law is. Quite often, it seems to me that laws themselves take the blame for being ineffective deterrents of behavior when actually the ineffectiveness is a function of a failure at a) and/or b).

I would also add that a law's effectiveness is a function of c) its nature or scope. If a law's scope is so broad that it can't be feasibly enforced, it is likely to be ineffective. If a country, for example, made walking illegal, that would be impossible to enforce because nearly everyone would break it.

What am I missing? Do you disagree with my criteria? Should we stop using the simplistic argument that we shouldn't have a law because criminals will just do it anyway?

The absurd assumption that justifies writing laws is that, without them, we would not be justified in punishing wrongdoers. The assumption is false because all that would be needed would be a simple statement by the state like:

The primary task of our Criminal Justice Panels is to protect innocent citizens from serious harm caused by intentional, immoral acts while at the same time being fair in the treatment of the people accused of crimes. The panels will strive to make the correct decisions as consistently as humanly possible by getting the correct answers to both the questions of reason and the questions of conscience.

Then the criminal justice panels, professional juries, could, unhindered by laws, deal with the facts of the actual case.

Criminal laws are massive attempts to micro-manage future decision-making. They lead to the absurd assumption that, even if it's a wrongful act, it's not punishable if it's not specifically prohibited (the legislators were too dumb to foresee it).

 

[Left Coast]

The absurd assumption that justifies writing laws is that, without them, we would not be justified in punishing wrongdoers. The assumption is false because all that would be needed would be a simple statement by the state like:

The primary task of our Criminal Justice Panels is to protect innocent citizens from serious harm caused by intentional, immoral acts while at the same time being fair in the treatment of the people accused of crimes. The panels will strive to make the correct decisions as consistently as humanly possible by getting the correct answers to both the questions of reason and the questions of conscience.

Then professional juries could, unhindered by laws, deal with the facts of the actual case.

Criminal laws are nothing more than massive attempts to micro-manage future decision-making.

How would juries determine what acts are crimes if we have no laws defining what they are or what the penalties for violating them are?

 

[sun rise]

If everyone were like Mister Roger's we wouldn't need laws.

Someday and from one Eastern perspective the Golden Age (satyuga) is just starting to be born.

 

[joe1776]

How would juries determine what acts are crimes if we have no laws defining what they are or what the penalties for violating them are?

They would do it exactly like the legislators would do it except that they would use the actual facts of the case rather than imagined facts.

The legislators don't have any special ability to discern right from wrong. They imagine a set of facts and allow their moral intuition (conscience) to judge it.

 

[Nakosis]

Countries all around the world have laws which their citizens break all the time. Here in the US, we have speed limits which, truth be told, I may have violated myself once or twice. This goes on even with the most serious, uncontroversial laws - people commit murder and rape every day as well, despite it being against the law.

So since criminals are just going to commit crime anyway, should we even have any of these laws at all?

We often hear this line of reasoning from the Right when the conversation is about gun control. In fairness, I also hear this from folks on the Left when talking about abortion, or the drug war.

In my view, this reasoning is overly simplistic and requires some nuance. First, while laws don't prevent all crime, as a general rule they do deter some. The degree to which they deter a behavior depends on a) how the law is enforced, and b) what the penalty for violating the law is. Quite often, it seems to me that laws themselves take the blame for being ineffective deterrents of behavior when actually the ineffectiveness is a function of a failure at a) and/or b).

I would also add that a law's effectiveness is a function of c) its nature or scope. If a law's scope is so broad that it can't be feasibly enforced, it is likely to be ineffective. If a country, for example, made walking illegal, that would be impossible to enforce because nearly everyone would break it.

What am I missing? Do you disagree with my criteria? Should we stop using the simplistic argument that we shouldn't have a law because criminals will just do it anyway?

Never saw the idea of civil laws was to prevent crime. More to identify criminal activity that a majority of folks feel needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately some laws I suspect are enacted to generate local revenue for the municipality.

Kind of a benefit to know what society see as acceptable. Like they pass laws to prevent people from sleeping in their cars in LA. Laws where it is permissible to park an RV. Most I think are willing to follow civil laws even if it is a bit of inconvenience.

Others have no intent to follow the law, whatever you create. Laws give law enforcement permission to deal with these folks. Sets guidelines for the police.

I agree that laws are at best a minor deterrent, but deterrent factor is not really not important with regard to laws. Kind of naive IMO to create a law expecting it to deter crime.

 

[Left Coast]

They would do it exactly like the legislators would do it except that they would use the actual facts of the case rather than imagined facts.

The legislators don't have any special ability to discern right from wrong. They imagine a set of facts and allow their moral intuition (conscience) to judge it.

Laws have nothing to do with legislators having "special abilities." They have to with codifying agreed upon standards/rules. Your "juries" are going to have to do the same thing if they are ever going to be productive. You can't have a functional justice system without agreed upon rules. We figured this out, I don't know, 4-5,000 years ago?

 

[sun rise]

Then the criminal justice panel, professional juries, could, unhindered by laws, deal with the facts of the actual case.

I prefer a system of laws to an arbitrary system of people who can do what they want or what they're paid to do.

 

[halbhh]

Countries all around the world have laws which their citizens break all the time. Here in the US, we have speed limits which, truth be told, I may have violated myself once or twice. This goes on even with the most serious, uncontroversial laws - people commit murder and rape every day as well, despite it being against the law.

So since criminals are just going to commit crime anyway, should we even have any of these laws at all?

We often hear this line of reasoning from the Right when the conversation is about gun control. In fairness, I also hear this from folks on the Left when talking about abortion, or the drug war.

In my view, this reasoning is overly simplistic and requires some nuance. First, while laws don't prevent all crime, as a general rule they do deter some. The degree to which they deter a behavior depends on a) how the law is enforced, and b) what the penalty for violating the law is. Quite often, it seems to me that laws themselves take the blame for being ineffective deterrents of behavior when actually the ineffectiveness is a function of a failure at a) and/or b).

I would also add that a law's effectiveness is a function of c) its nature or scope. If a law's scope is so broad that it can't be feasibly enforced, it is likely to be ineffective. If a country, for example, made walking illegal, that would be impossible to enforce because nearly everyone would break it.

What am I missing? Do you disagree with my criteria? Should we stop using the simplistic argument that we shouldn't have a law because criminals will just do it anyway?

Maybe the main power of the law (or my guess) is that it signals to some that want to do right what might very well be the right. (and some others who also want to do right may rely on other sources of what is the good)

But, when someone is intent on doing a wrong, the law or getting caught is only a practical obstacle to them. Something to get around.
They will do it if they think they can get away with it.

What really works to keep a society civil and peaceful then isn't the law itself, but instead what motivates law in the ideal -- the desire to do what is right, and for there to be Justice (in that perfect abstract sense of true fairness and good) --

That's what actually keeps most people doing what is right.

And, one thought that came to me is the wonderful poem 38 of the Tao --

Notice in the downward spiral that 'justice' as a law enforcement kind of thing -- that's a bit down the down the spiral.
Late in the day.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 38

A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.

A truly good man does nothing,
Yet nothing is left undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of the Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.

Therefore the truly great man dwells on what is real
and not what is on the surface,
On the fruit and not the flower,
Therefore accept the one and reject the other.

(Translation from:
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 38 )

 

[leov]

Countries all around the world have laws which their citizens break all the time. Here in the US, we have speed limits which, truth be told, I may have violated myself once or twice. This goes on even with the most serious, uncontroversial laws - people commit murder and rape every day as well, despite it being against the law.

So since criminals are just going to commit crime anyway, should we even have any of these laws at all?

We often hear this line of reasoning from the Right when the conversation is about gun control. In fairness, I also hear this from folks on the Left when talking about abortion, or the drug war.

In my view, this reasoning is overly simplistic and requires some nuance. First, while laws don't prevent all crime, as a general rule they do deter some. The degree to which they deter a behavior depends on a) how the law is enforced, and b) what the penalty for violating the law is. Quite often, it seems to me that laws themselves take the blame for being ineffective deterrents of behavior when actually the ineffectiveness is a function of a failure at a) and/or b).

I would also add that a law's effectiveness is a function of c) its nature or scope. If a law's scope is so broad that it can't be feasibly enforced, it is likely to be ineffective. If a country, for example, made walking illegal, that would be impossible to enforce because nearly everyone would break it.

What am I missing? Do you disagree with my criteria? Should we stop using the simplistic argument that we shouldn't have a law because criminals will just do it anyway?

1 Samuel 8 ESV
that the way governments play gods.

 

[joe1776]

I prefer a system of laws to an arbitrary system of people who can do what they want or what they're paid to do.

If I was wrongly charged with murder, I'd want a jury of highly-trained professionals to ferret out the facts and judge me. If I had to depend on the law, and an amateur jury, getting on-the-job training, like we have in the USA today, I'd be scared out of my mind.

In the 50 states of the USA there are 50 different massive laws on murder. The very same borderline case of self-defense might be justified in some states but not others.

 

[joe1776]

Laws have nothing to do with legislators having "special abilities." They have to with codifying agreed upon standards/rules. Your "juries" are going to have to do the same thing if they are ever going to be productive. You can't have a functional justice system without agreed upon rules. We figured this out, I don't know, 4-5,000 years ago?

Moral intuition (conscience) is a very simple moral guide, the only one we humans have. If the specific act is morally wrong, it will FEEL wrong.

When those rules and laws agree with the judgments of conscience they are coincidentally right the way a stopped clock can be right twice a day. And when they conflict, they are potential biases that can lead judgments off their correct course.

 

[Left Coast]

Maybe the main power of the law (or my guess) is that it signals to some that want to do right what might very well be the right. (and some others who also want to do right may rely on other sources of what is the good)

But, when someone is intent on doing a wrong, the law or getting caught is only a practical obstacle to them. Something to get around.
They will do it if they think they can get away with it.

What really works to keep a society civil and peaceful then isn't the law itself, but instead what motivates law in the ideal -- the desire to do what is right, and for there to be Justice (in that perfect abstract sense of true fairness and good) --

That's what actually keeps most people doing what is right.

And, one thought that came to me is the wonderful poem 38 of the Tao --

Notice in the downward spiral that 'justice' as a law enforcement kind of thing -- that's a bit down the down the spiral.
Late in the day.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 38

A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.

A truly good man does nothing,
Yet nothing is left undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of the Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.

Therefore the truly great man dwells on what is real
and not what is on the surface,
On the fruit and not the flower,
Therefore accept the one and reject the other.

(Translation from:
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 38 )

Your comments remind me of Kohlberg's stages of moral development:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Although I tend to agree that it would be great if all of us were guided by a matching internal motivating to do the right thing, in practice I don't think that would make great public policy. Thus, the need for agreed upon laws by which we organize society.

 

[joe1776]

Your comments remind me of Kohlberg's stages of moral development:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Although I tend to agree that it would be great if all of us were guided by a matching internal motivating to do the right thing, in practice I don't think that would make great public policy. Thus, the need for agreed upon laws by which we organize society.

Conscience doesn't provide motivation. It provides moral guidance which we are free to follow or ignore.

Social research over the last 20 years or so has rendered Kohlberg obsolete. The judgments of conscience emerge immediately from the unconscious as intuition. The reasoning done is after-the fact justification (Haidt 2000).

 

[Left Coast]

Moral intuition (conscience) is a very simple moral guide, the only one we humans have. If the specific act is morally wrong, it will FEEL wrong.

Your assessment is vastly over-simplified.

Morality is actually quite complicated and nuanced, which is why our species has incessantly disagreed with each other about moral issues for our entire recorded history. Certain fundamental principles, like fairness, tend to be pretty universal in our moral reasoning, but its precisely the application of that principle where the rubber meets the road and people disagree. Thus, again, the need for codified standards to organize society.

Secondly, people do things that are morally wrong without guilt all the time. Examples are so obvious I don't even feel the need to cite one. Thus, again, the need for codified standards to organize society.

 

[halbhh]

Your comments remind me of Kohlberg's stages of moral development:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Although I tend to agree that it would be great if all of us were guided by a matching internal motivating to do the right thing, in practice I don't think that would make great public policy. Thus, the need for agreed upon laws by which we organize society.

I ended up in other things, but about the law itself -- it only works if the people decide to do good, or be good citizens.

For instance, there are relatively few police (always) compared to the populace, and they can only be helpful to keep order if the percent doing criminal activity is quite small.

There is a tipping point, not very many percent (maybe even as small as just 3-8%), where above that level, the police are useless, or even will some of them just join in.

So, law and policing are sort of an illusion, see. Or what I mean is, they are more an outcome than they are even a factor. The police are more like....a thermometer, if you like.

 

[Left Coast]

Conscience doesn't provide motivation. It provides moral guidance which we are free to follow or ignore.

Social research over the last 20 years or so has rendered Kohlberg obsolete. The judgments of conscience emerge immediately from the unconscious as intuition. The reasoning done is after-the fact justification (Haidt 2000).

My point wasn't to defend Kohlberg, only to say the comment reminded me of his ideas.

Some of our moral reasoning is surely post hoc rationalization, no doubt. The idea that all our moral reasoning and behavior can be characterized that way is, again, vastly over-simplified.

 

[halbhh]

Your comments remind me of Kohlberg's stages of moral development:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Although I tend to agree that it would be great if all of us were guided by a matching internal motivating to do the right thing, in practice I don't think that would make great public policy. Thus, the need for agreed upon laws by which we organize society.

One thought from that article I had: this is partly about reasoning about morality. The story people tell themselves about themselves and to rationalize or support what they are doing or want to be.

This view is supported the last paragraph, confirming what we all sorta know from experience is common: "Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that women approach moral problems from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an ‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory."