Creating Laws: Effective Deterrent Or Not?

The effectiveness of laws in discouraging people from breaking them is a complex issue that has been debated for centuries, dating back to the time of Socrates. While laws are established to regulate behaviour and promote social order, the question of whether creating a law effectively discourages people from breaking it is not as straightforward. This is because various factors, such as individual conscience, moral convictions, and the perceived legitimacy of the law, come into play. Additionally, there are unenforced or symbolic laws that are formally in effect but are not typically penalised, which can create ambiguity and undermine the overall legal system.

Civil disobedience and individual rights

Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government or occupying power. It is distinct from rebellion in that it is non-violent and seeks to force concessions from the government rather than its overthrow. However, civil disobedience is not always non-violent and can be revolutionary, seeking to change cultural traditions, social customs or religious beliefs.

The concept of civil disobedience is often attributed to Henry David Thoreau's 1849 essay, 'Resistance to Civil Government', later renamed 'Civil Disobedience'. Thoreau's driving idea was that citizens are morally responsible for their support of aggressors, even when such support is required by law. Thoreau himself was imprisoned for refusing to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and the Mexican-American War.

The modern concept of civil disobedience was most clearly formulated by Mahatma Gandhi, who developed the philosophy of satyagraha, emphasising non-violent resistance to evil. Gandhi sought to obtain equal rights and freedom through satyagraha campaigns in South Africa and India, such as the Salt March in 1930.

Civil disobedience has been used by prominent activists such as American women's suffrage leader Susan B. Anthony, Egyptian nationalist Saad Zaghloul, and Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s civil rights movement.

There are various theories of civil disobedience. John Rawls described it as:

> a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about change in the law or policies of the government.

Ronald Dworkin held that there are three types: integrity-based, justice-based, and policy-based. Brownlee argues that civil disobedience can be justified when it reflects a larger challenge to the legal system, including the decisions of non-governmental agencies, international organisations, and foreign governments.

Civil disobedience is usually defined as pertaining to a citizen's relation to the state and its laws, as distinguished from a constitutional impasse. It is intentionally breaking the law, and those engaging in it can expect to be arrested and punished. Protestors must make choices about how to respond to arrest and punishment, such as whether to plead guilty or not guilty.

Civil disobedience has been criticised for its acceptance of the existing political structure, and for the logical extension of this being anarchy and the right of individuals to break any law. Activists are divided in interpreting civil disobedience as either a total philosophy of social change or merely a tactic. On a pragmatic level, its efficacy hinges on the opposition adhering to a certain morality.

Unenforced laws and their impact

Unenforced laws, also known as symbolic laws or dead letter laws, are laws that are officially in effect but are not penalised by a jurisdiction. These laws are often ignored by law enforcement and carry few to no practical consequences for breaking them.

There are three broad policies available to governments regarding the enforcement of laws: not prohibiting the act at all, enacting a law and enforcing it, and enacting a law and not enforcing it. The enactment of a law can be costly, and a fraction of the population will often comply with the law once its enactment has been announced. This is known as the expressive function of law.

The existence of unenforced laws has been criticised for undermining the legal system. When individuals observe law-breaking without repercussions, it may erode the authority of the law and public respect for legal rules in general. Unenforced laws may be enacted purely for symbolic reasons, with little to no intention of enforcement. For example, adultery was prohibited by law in the US state of Colorado until 2013, but no criminal penalty was specified. In Maryland, adultery is prohibited, but the statutory criminal penalty is limited to a $10 fine.

In some cases, an otherwise enforced law may not be penalised. For instance, speeding in a motor vehicle is illegal in most jurisdictions, but law enforcement may choose to ignore motorists who only slightly exceed the legal speed limit.

Public perception of laws

Firstly, public perception of laws is influenced by individuals' personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and media portrayals. People's perceptions of events, issues, and leaders impact their political beliefs and shape their support for or opposition to specific laws. For example, in the context of civil disobedience, individuals may justify breaking the law when they perceive it as unjust or contradictory to their conscience or religious faith.

Secondly, public perception is closely tied to the legitimacy of political institutions and the rule of law. When the public holds positive views of the legal system and its fairness, it strengthens the government's stability and effectiveness. Conversely, negative perceptions of corruption, inefficiency, or abuse of power can erode trust and destabilize political systems. For instance, in the context of law enforcement, public perception surveys reveal that a majority of Americans support police reform and holding officers accountable for misconduct.

Thirdly, public perception influences the decision-making of political leaders. Elected officials are cognizant of how their actions and policies are perceived, and this perception directly impacts their ability to govern effectively. They must navigate the complex dynamics of public opinion, taking into account the diverse perspectives of various stakeholder groups.

Additionally, public perception shapes the political narrative and ideologies. Media outlets, interest groups, and political leaders strategically communicate and frame issues to influence public opinion. By emphasising certain aspects or selectively highlighting specific statistics, they can sway public sentiment and shape the direction of political debates.

Lastly, public perception affects voting decisions and electoral outcomes. Candidates who effectively manage their public image and cultivate positive perceptions among voters are more likely to succeed. Political parties that align their policies and messaging with the perceptions and interests of specific voter groups can gain support and shape political realities.

In conclusion, public perception of laws is a dynamic and influential force in shaping political landscapes. It impacts trust in institutions, guides policy decisions, and influences voting behaviour. By understanding and effectively managing public perception, governments can enhance their legitimacy and ensure their laws are perceived as fair and necessary, thereby discouraging law-breaking.

Moral implications of law-breaking

The question of whether it is morally acceptable to break the law has been a subject of debate for centuries, dating back to the time of Socrates. It is a complex issue that involves a balance between personal morality, civic obligation, and the nature of the law itself.

On one hand, the law is established to maintain order and ensure justice in society. Breaking the law can have negative consequences not only for the individual but also for the wider community. It can undermine respect for the law, disrupt social stability, and lead to disorder. From this perspective, law-breaking is generally seen as a negative act and individuals are expected to abide by the laws that govern their society.

However, there are circumstances when breaking the law may be morally justified. This is particularly relevant in situations where individuals strongly believe that a law is unjust, oppressive, or violates fundamental human rights. Throughout history, civil disobedience has been employed as a form of protest against such laws, with individuals and groups risking punishment to stand up for their principles. For example, during the civil rights movement in the United States, advocates for racial equality engaged in acts of civil disobedience to challenge segregation laws, despite the legal consequences they faced.

The justification for civil disobedience often arises from a higher moral principle, such as "freedom", "equality", or "national independence". In these cases, law-breaking can be seen as a courageous act of defiance against an oppressive or unjust system. It can be a powerful tool to bring attention to a cause, challenge societal norms, and catalyse change.

However, it is important to recognise that civil disobedience is not without its limitations. The decision to break the law must be carefully considered, as it involves weighing the importance of the cause against the potential consequences. The act of law-breaking should be proportional to the goal being pursued, and it should not incite violence or cause unnecessary harm. Additionally, the cause being fought for must be just, and legal alternatives should be exhausted before resorting to civil disobedience.

In conclusion, the moral implications of law-breaking are complex and depend on a variety of factors. While breaking the law is generally discouraged, there are circumstances when it may be morally justifiable. Individuals must carefully evaluate the specific context, the potential impact on society, and their own personal convictions before engaging in any form of law-breaking.

Effectiveness of laws in deterring crime

The effectiveness of laws in deterring crime is a complex issue that has been debated by philosophers, legal scholars, and social scientists for centuries. While creating and enforcing laws is a fundamental aspect of any society, the question of whether the existence of a law effectively discourages individuals from breaking it is multifaceted.

Firstly, it is essential to recognize that laws are created and enforced within a specific social and cultural context. What is considered illegal in one society may be acceptable or even encouraged in another. For example, cultural norms and values influence the creation and enforcement of laws, and these norms and values can vary significantly across different societies and historical periods. As such, the effectiveness of a law in deterring crime may be influenced by how well it aligns with the prevailing cultural and social norms of a given society at a particular time.

Secondly, the effectiveness of laws in deterring crime is closely tied to the perception and awareness of those laws among the general public. In many cases, individuals may unknowingly break the law due to a lack of awareness or understanding of certain legal provisions. This is particularly common for laws that are highly technical or complex, or for laws that govern emerging areas, such as those related to technology and the internet. In such cases, individuals may engage in illegal activities without realizing they are breaking the law, which underscores the importance of legal education and accessible information about the law for the general public.

Thirdly, the effectiveness of laws in deterring crime can be influenced by the presence or absence of enforcement mechanisms. While the creation of a law establishes a formal prohibition or requirement, effective enforcement is necessary to ensure compliance. Law enforcement agencies, regulatory bodies, and the judicial system all play crucial roles in enforcing laws and holding individuals accountable for their actions. However, it is important to note that even in the presence of strong enforcement mechanisms, selective enforcement or unequal treatment before the law can undermine the effectiveness of laws in deterring crime.

Moreover, the effectiveness of laws in deterring crime is closely tied to the severity and certainty of punishment. The prospect of facing negative consequences, such as fines, imprisonment, or other penalties, can act as a deterrent for potential lawbreakers. However, this assumes that the benefits of breaking the law do not outweigh the potential costs, and that individuals accurately perceive and assess these risks. Additionally, the certainty of punishment can also play a role, as individuals may be more likely to abide by laws if they believe that violations will be consistently detected and punished.

Lastly, it is important to recognize that laws operate within a broader social, economic, and political context. Factors such as social inequality, poverty, and political instability can influence the effectiveness of laws in deterring crime. For example, individuals living in marginalized communities or facing economic hardships may be more likely to engage in illegal activities if they perceive a lack of alternative opportunities or a sense of injustice in the social and economic systems that govern their lives.

In conclusion, while the creation of laws is a necessary aspect of establishing social order and governing behavior, the effectiveness of laws in deterring crime is influenced by a multitude of factors. These include cultural and social norms, awareness and understanding of the law, enforcement mechanisms, the severity and certainty of punishment, and the broader social, economic, and political context in which laws operate. As such, a comprehensive understanding of these factors is essential for creating effective laws and promoting compliance among the general public.

Frequently asked questions