Lawlessness: A World Without Order

The breakdown of the rule of law can have severe consequences for society. When the rule of law breaks down, there is often a rise in corruption, with public officials and politicians abusing their power and acting in their self-interest rather than for the public good. This can lead to a loss of trust in the government and a breakdown of social order, as seen in the Memphis Massacre of 1866, where racial violence and terror went unpunished due to a failure in the rule of law.

Additionally, the breakdown of the rule of law can lead to an increase in criminal activity as individuals take advantage of the lack of enforcement and punishment. This can further erode social trust and cohesion, leading to a decline in economic and social well-being.

Furthermore, the breakdown of the rule of law can result in a loss of clarity and consistency in legal interpretations, as seen in the example of the UK's replica gun law, where the definition of a replica gun is vague and subject to individual interpretation. This can lead to confusion and injustice in the application of the law.

Overall, the breakdown of the rule of law can have far-reaching consequences, affecting the stability, safety, and well-being of society as a whole.

The rule of law is an abstract concept, difficult to uphold in reality

The rule of law is often discussed as an abstract concept, but the reality is that it is susceptible to failure. The Memphis Massacre of 1866 is an example of the breakdown of the rule of law. For three days, police and local officials led a massacre of dozens of African Americans, with the perpetrators believing that their actions were enforcing the rule of law. This demonstrates the complex nature of interpreting and abiding by the law, and how easily it can be manipulated to justify violent actions.

The rule of law is a fragile construct, as it is created by humans and thus, susceptible to human emotions and behaviour. It is an attempt to control human behaviour, and humans often decide that laws do not apply to them or need to be changed. The tension between individual goals and the goals of the group can lead to laws being broken or ignored. Additionally, laws are subject to interpretation, and this can vary between individuals and groups.

The rule of law is also influenced by power dynamics and politics. For example, judges have a lot of power, and if they accept bribes or form alliances with powerful figures, the law can be corrupted. Politicians can also pass laws to subvert the rule of law, as seen with Adolf Hitler in Germany. Public officials and legislators are often not subject to formal legal sanctions when they break the law, and in some cases, their actions may be supported by the public if the policies are successful, even if they are illegal.

Furthermore, the law is complex and vast, and it can be challenging for individuals to know and understand all the laws that exist. While ignorance of the law is not usually a permissible legal defence, it is challenging to enforce laws that people are unaware of or do not fully understand.

Overall, the rule of law is a challenging concept to uphold in reality due to its abstract nature, the complexity of human behaviour and interpretation, and the influence of power dynamics and politics. It requires constant vigilance and adaptation to ensure it is upheld and serves its intended purpose.

Rule of law breakdown can lead to violent racial terror and a failure to deliver justice

The breakdown of the rule of law can have severe consequences for society, often leading to social unrest, authoritarianism, and civil strife. When the rule of law is compromised, violent racial terror can emerge, and justice is often not served.

In the United States, the breakdown of the rule of law has been linked to a history of racial violence and the perpetuation of white supremacist rule. From the legalised violence of slave masters to the terrorist acts of the KKK, racial violence has often been framed as a deviation from the rule of law. However, critical race theorists argue that racial violence is enabled and perpetuated by the legal system itself, which is rooted in racial capitalism.

The failure to hold government officials accountable for misconduct and the lack of independence of the judiciary contribute to the erosion of the rule of law. When those in power are not subject to the same laws as everyone else, it creates a sense of impunity and further undermines the public's trust in the justice system. This is particularly evident in the case of campaign finance laws, where the lack of enforcement by the Federal Election Commission has led to a perception of lawlessness among the powerful.

Furthermore, the breakdown of the rule of law can lead to the marginalisation and oppression of certain racial groups. In the context of racial capitalism, the law can be used to legitimise and perpetuate racial hierarchies, resulting in social divisions and conflict. This is evident in the case of Sri Lanka, where the excessive use of force by law enforcement against protesters has led to social disaffection and the emergence of separatist militancy.

To restore the rule of law and promote racial justice, it is essential to address the underlying issues of racial capitalism and the biases inherent in the legal system. This requires a comprehensive approach that involves all segments of society, including the so-called "ordinary people," whose voices and experiences are often overlooked in the constitution-making process.

Law-breakers may believe they are enforcing the rule of law

In May 1866, the Memphis Massacre saw police and local officials lead a three-day slaughter of dozens of African-American men, women, and children. The city was set ablaze, with homes, schools, churches, and businesses burned down, and African Americans were subjected to rape, beatings, and robberies. The perpetrators of this racial violence believed that their actions were enforcing the rule of law, fuelled by the perception that the new freedoms and economic liberty of freedmen were contrary to the Constitution of the founders.

The Memphis Massacre was one of many race riots that occurred in the Reconstruction South, brought about by radical developments intended to promote equal citizenship following the Civil War, and the resistance of white southerners to this change in the social order. The local response failed to provide any criminal or civil remedies to the victims of the massacre. No local action was ever taken to bring those responsible to justice for the heinous acts committed.

The rule of law is an abstract concept, and the Memphis Massacre of 1866 provides a valuable case study in the failure of its foundational principles. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the wake of the massacre, but positive developments in constitutional protections cannot prevent racial terror where individuals do not adhere to the underlying ideals of fundamental equality among persons. The formal and procedural law cannot be self-executing, but it requires the individual and the state to guarantee the equality of citizenship.

Law-breaking by public officials may not always lead to negative political consequences

For instance, the Obama Administration's decision to direct strikes against Libyan air defences, in conjunction with NATO, without prior consultation or approval from Congress, was widely considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution. However, this illegality did not produce any negative political consequences, as the policy was ultimately deemed successful. Similarly, the mayors of San Francisco and New Paltz, New York, who married same-sex couples in violation of state law at the time, faced no negative political fallout as their actions aligned with the sympathies of their states.

On the other hand, when illegal policies are unsuccessful and face public scrutiny, the fact of illegality can increase the political and reputational penalty for officials responsible. An example of this is the George W. Bush Administration's use of torture and surveillance without warrants, which explicitly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These illegalities attracted substantial political and public condemnation, and the sense that the "war on terrorism" remains a work in progress.

In conclusion, it appears that the political consequences of law-breaking by public officials are complex and dependent on various factors, such as the success of the policy and its alignment with public opinion.

Law-breaking is often a result of tension between individual goals and the goals of the group

The breakdown of the rule of law can be attributed to the inherent tension between individual goals and the goals of the group. This tension can manifest in various ways and have significant consequences, including law-breaking.

Firstly, individuals within a group may have conflicting goals and priorities, leading to what is known as "goal conflict". This occurs when one person or subgroup within an organisation pursues different objectives than others, resulting in clashes and disagreements. For example, consider a company facing financial difficulties and needing to cut costs. Senior managers might decide to reduce headcount, while simultaneously emphasising the need to meet revenue targets. This creates a conflict between the goal of cost-cutting and the goal of revenue generation, as line managers may require more workers to achieve their targets. Such conflicts can lead to confusion, mistrust, and reduced cooperation among employees, ultimately hindering the organisation's ability to achieve either goal effectively.

Secondly, groupthink, a psychological phenomenon, can also contribute to law-breaking. Groupthink occurs when the desire for harmony or conformity within a group results in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. In an effort to minimise conflict and reach consensus, group members may avoid raising controversial issues or offering alternative viewpoints, leading to a lack of critical evaluation. This can result in overconfidence, closed-mindedness, and a tendency to stereotype and dehumanise those outside the group. For example, in the case of the 1866 Memphis Massacre, local officials and police led a massacre of African-Americans, fuelled by the belief that the new freedoms of freedmen after the Civil War were contrary to the Constitution. They interpreted the rule of law through the lens of their own biases and goals, resulting in horrific violence and a complete breakdown of law and order.

Additionally, individuals within a group may experience intrapersonal conflict, where they are attracted to and repelled by the same object or hold conflicting values and priorities. For instance, a person may be faced with two equally appealing job offers and struggle to choose between them. This internal conflict can influence their behaviour and decision-making, potentially leading to law-breaking if their chosen course of action contradicts established laws or norms.

Furthermore, interpersonal conflict, or conflict between two individuals, can also contribute to law-breaking. When two people disagree, the conflict often becomes highly personal, and it can be challenging to separate the opponent's position from their person. This type of conflict can escalate, particularly if one or both individuals feel their goals or interests are being threatened or blocked by the other. If left unresolved, interpersonal conflict can lead to increased tension, hostility, and, in some cases, law-breaking behaviour.

Lastly, intergroup conflict, or conflict between different groups within an organisation, can also result from the tension between individual and group goals. This type of conflict typically involves disagreements over goals or the sharing of resources and can foster an "us-against-them" mentality. For example, marketing and production units within a company may compete for resources, each pursuing their subgoals at the expense of the other. Intergroup conflict can lead to the formation of coalitions, further entrenching opposing sides and making it difficult to find a resolution that aligns with the goals and interests of all parties involved.

In conclusion, the tension between individual goals and the goals of the group can lead to various forms of conflict, including goal conflict, groupthink, intrapersonal conflict, interpersonal conflict, and intergroup conflict. These conflicts can have significant consequences, including law-breaking, particularly when they remain unresolved or are mishandled. Effective leadership and conflict resolution strategies are crucial for navigating these tensions and maintaining a functioning rule of law.

Frequently asked questions