I recall saying something similar in the Hall once. Specifically how I wish people would think more carefully when proposing laws and asking "is this worth taking someone's life over". At the time, I recall getting some grief over that statement as being overwrought. It's nice to see Yale Law professor Stephen L. Carter agree with me.
I don't recall the discussion, but you wouldn't have gotten any argument from me. There are only a couple of crimes identified in our Constitution, so there should only be a couple of criminal laws on our Federal books.
I wonder if that was Cassandra? She and I had a similar debate going about the degree to which law enforcement was necessarily a form of violence. It's kind of an Aristotelian point, since there's both an "In a way, yes," and "But in another way, no" way of approaching the question. I tend to think that it is, but it's sensible to argue that the point of the law is to reduce violence, and thus that even the occasional violent enforcement -- if it succeeds in reducing the incidence of violence overall -- is a kind of anti-violence.
Of course, that depends on the law being enforced wisely and well, and therefore actually having a retardant effect on violence. Plus, I'm not one who shares the assumption (common in our society, though not really in this crowd) that violence is wrong.
it's sensible to argue that the point of the law is to reduce violence, and thus that even the occasional violent enforcement....
In the same way, in order to preserve and protect our individual liberty, it's necessary to surrender a (small) measure of that liberty to a government so that it can have necessary tools with which to effect the preservation and protection.
I am absolutely fine with the idea of laws and the inherent risk of violence that occurs in the enforcement of them. What I am against is the lazy, haphazard way many people want laws in place for everything they take even minor objection to, and then wash their hands of any responsibility of the inherent violence that will eventually occur due to said enforcement. "There oughta be a law" is one of the most objectionable phrases I can think of (right up there beside "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"). As if passing a law somehow magically prevents the action from ever occurring again, or the idea that demanding the law still allows one to have "clean hands". And Grim has so eloquently written in the past, "clean hands" is an illusion.
Some laws are good and necessary, and the violence required for their enforcement are acceptable trade-offs. But have no illusions, laws do not prevent crimes, they punish those who break them. Additionally all laws carry an inherent risk of violence in their enforcement, regardless of how "regulatory" or "mere code enforcement" they may be. For crying out loud, the Department of Agriculture has armed federal agents! They're not busting smuggling rings or breaking up drug cartels, they're enforcing food safety laws and yet they have need of armed agents.
"... it's sensible to argue that the point of the law is to reduce violence, and thus that even the occasional violent enforcement -- if it succeeds in reducing the incidence of violence overall -- is a kind of anti-violence."
Well, some laws are intended to reduce violence, such as laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. However, many of our laws have no such objective, and so I don't think there is any validity to the argument that those laws are a kind of anti-violence. For example, the law in NYC against selling loose cigarettes wasn't aimed at preventing any kind of violence.
No, that was merely for the protection of their tax racket. Never mind that the taxes HAD been paid on the cigarettes in question. They just didn't want someone else muscling in on their profits. And I'm not referring to the tobacco companies here.
I recall saying something similar in the Hall once. Specifically how I wish people would think more carefully when proposing laws and asking "is this worth taking someone's life over". At the time, I recall getting some grief over that statement as being overwrought. It's nice to see Yale Law professor Stephen L. Carter agree with me.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall the discussion, but you wouldn't have gotten any argument from me. There are only a couple of crimes identified in our Constitution, so there should only be a couple of criminal laws on our Federal books.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
I wonder if that was Cassandra? She and I had a similar debate going about the degree to which law enforcement was necessarily a form of violence. It's kind of an Aristotelian point, since there's both an "In a way, yes," and "But in another way, no" way of approaching the question. I tend to think that it is, but it's sensible to argue that the point of the law is to reduce violence, and thus that even the occasional violent enforcement -- if it succeeds in reducing the incidence of violence overall -- is a kind of anti-violence.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that depends on the law being enforced wisely and well, and therefore actually having a retardant effect on violence. Plus, I'm not one who shares the assumption (common in our society, though not really in this crowd) that violence is wrong.
it's sensible to argue that the point of the law is to reduce violence, and thus that even the occasional violent enforcement....
ReplyDeleteIn the same way, in order to preserve and protect our individual liberty, it's necessary to surrender a (small) measure of that liberty to a government so that it can have necessary tools with which to effect the preservation and protection.
Eric Hines
I am absolutely fine with the idea of laws and the inherent risk of violence that occurs in the enforcement of them. What I am against is the lazy, haphazard way many people want laws in place for everything they take even minor objection to, and then wash their hands of any responsibility of the inherent violence that will eventually occur due to said enforcement. "There oughta be a law" is one of the most objectionable phrases I can think of (right up there beside "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"). As if passing a law somehow magically prevents the action from ever occurring again, or the idea that demanding the law still allows one to have "clean hands". And Grim has so eloquently written in the past, "clean hands" is an illusion.
ReplyDeleteSome laws are good and necessary, and the violence required for their enforcement are acceptable trade-offs. But have no illusions, laws do not prevent crimes, they punish those who break them. Additionally all laws carry an inherent risk of violence in their enforcement, regardless of how "regulatory" or "mere code enforcement" they may be. For crying out loud, the Department of Agriculture has armed federal agents! They're not busting smuggling rings or breaking up drug cartels, they're enforcing food safety laws and yet they have need of armed agents.
"... it's sensible to argue that the point of the law is to reduce violence, and thus that even the occasional violent enforcement -- if it succeeds in reducing the incidence of violence overall -- is a kind of anti-violence."
ReplyDeleteWell, some laws are intended to reduce violence, such as laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. However, many of our laws have no such objective, and so I don't think there is any validity to the argument that those laws are a kind of anti-violence. For example, the law in NYC against selling loose cigarettes wasn't aimed at preventing any kind of violence.
No, that was merely for the protection of their tax racket. Never mind that the taxes HAD been paid on the cigarettes in question. They just didn't want someone else muscling in on their profits. And I'm not referring to the tobacco companies here.
ReplyDelete