Enforcing the law...

[Jon_in_london]

When I did sociology, one of the points raised was that, given we are stuck with a legal system that does depend on humans interpreting the law, what are the implications of that. The claim was that kids from a 'good' neighbourhood caught doing something bad are given a warning and sent on their way, while kids from a 'bad' one are given a much harder time.

I think its quite important that police actions should always bear in mind "is this in the public interest?" For example, pepper spray is viewed as a self-defence mechanism by women in many contries. In the UK pepper spray is considered an Offensive Weapon- possesion of which is a criminal offence in this country. Is it therefore right if an Italian girl brings over her pepper spray, gets arrested, charged and sent to prison? Even though there was no malicious intent?

As to the kids in the good neighbourhood vs. the bad- Kids in a good neighbourhood are unlikely to have had previous dealings with the police and are unlikely to have a history of offending. OTH, kids from a bad heighbourhood are more likely to have record of offending which may warrant harsher sentences.

 

[Jocko]

Actually, they can.

Not like you're trying to pretend they can.

Bacteria are just organic machines, Jocko. It's clear that you're going to keep shifting goalposts (what exactly is "perfection" when it comes to living things?), so I'm just gonna put you on a little list of mine.

Since I wasn't already on your list, that proves it's open to abuse and you should abandon it at once.

 

[CBL4]

I... well, damn. That is an excellent point. That is a very, very excellent point.

Thank you. Sometimes my hands and brain work together properly.

I should note this mediocrity idea was stolen from software development. Companies put tedious procedures in place in order to improve software. The procedures stifle the most creative and produce mediocre, but generally workable, software. If I remember correctly, Tom DeMarco describe it best in his book "Peopleware."

CBL

 

[Melendwyr]

Upon reflection, I think your suggestion explains a great deal about how people react to this issue. Individuals who have a high regard for their own ability to act "appropriately" are likely to resent any external constraints on reaching conclusions, even if those constraints actually describe their methods.

If people respect authority highly, they'll favor loose rules that leave a great deal of power in authority's hands. If people don't respect authority highly, they'll want to restrict that power. And people will come to conclusions based on their emotional preferences, not on the merits of any particular rule system.

 

[Freakshow]

Sorry to "post and run", folks. There's been some good discussion here so far, but I've had to leave it for now. Work's been crazy, and I've had to get some things done before the week is up. I'll be back on this thread over the weekend.

 

[BPSCG]

Upon reflection, I think your suggestion explains a great deal about how people react to this issue. Individuals who have a high regard for their own ability to act "appropriately" are likely to resent any external constraints on reaching conclusions, even if those constraints actually describe their methods.

If people respect authority highly, they'll favor loose rules that leave a great deal of power in authority's hands. If people don't respect authority highly, they'll want to restrict that power. And people will come to conclusions based on their emotional preferences, not on the merits of any particular rule system.

Okay, what about those people who have high faith in their own judgement, but who still tend to respect authority? I fall in that category.

 

[Cleopatra]

Amateur Scientist brought in the discussion a very serious matter when it comes to law enforcment that is called the spirit of the law. I have a slight disagreement though.

I believe that both the "letter" and the spirit of the law are taken into consideration when law is enforced and I am ceratin that fair and experienced judges can see even the most refined shades of a color and not just the color.

Somebody,Atlas I think mentioned the distinction between the first timers and the "serial criminals". There are cases in which it's crystal clear that the first timer will become a serial criminal and in those cases the judges are real severe and go by the letter of the law and frankly I agree with this attitude.

When I was reading that thread in the community forum about the deslike ( to put it politely) towards lawyers, I was thinking that people really haven't realized how easy it is to find themselves in serious legal troubles. Common citizens can find themselves involved in serious crimes just by luck. A serious car accident for example. In those cases they would ask for a good lawyer ( and they would feel sorry for all the lawyer jokes they have told) and a judge that can read between the lines and is able to judge by the spirit of law without violating its letter.

It's not as easy as it appears. You have to admit that in the majority of cases the sense of justice is subjective ( and this is the role that laws have to play in a society, it's a concesus about what is just or better, it's the final word on what is just) and depends largely on the experiences of all the implicated parts in a trial.Also, the subjectivity is proven by the fact that the sense of justice evolves, changes in time and in geographical latitude.

So, yes it depends and we must wish to have judges that are able to judge by the spirit and by the letter of the law.

Think it the other way. Two parts expect from the same person to act differently. The victim asks for the law enforcement by the letter and the victimizer appeals to the spirit of law. A good judge is able to do both by avoiding pseudo-dilemmas that are presented by both parts.

Interesting discussion but when people are involved there are not definite answers.

 

[BPSCG]

Thank you. Sometimes my hands and brain work together properly.

I should note this mediocrity idea was stolen from software development. Companies put tedious procedures in place in order to improve software. The procedures stifle the most creative and produce mediocre, but generally workable, software. If I remember correctly, Tom DeMarco describe it best in his book "Peopleware."

That idea, implemented as law or regulations, results in what's known as "zero-drugs/weapons tolerance policies", "three strikes and you're out" policies, and "mandatory sentencing rules."

None of these leave any room for judgement or interpretation, resulting in the ludicrous spectacle of junior high school girls being suspended or even expelled for giving a couple of Motrin tablets to a classmate having menstrual cramps.

 

[Melendwyr]

None of these leave any room for judgement or interpretation, resulting in the ludicrous spectacle of junior high school girls being suspended or even expelled for giving a couple of Motrin tablets to a classmate having menstrual cramps.

If the law is changed so that an exception is made for aspirin, there's still no room for interpretation, but the ludicrous spectacle is eliminated.

Repeat for every case you feel should be made an exception of, moving to general principles instead of specific examples, and you've got an absolute law that leads to consequences you approve of.

Your argument is rejected.

 

[BPSCG]

Repeat for every case you feel should be made an exception of, moving to general principles instead of specific examples, and you've got an absolute law that leads to consequences you approve of.

Yeah, well I asked you to do just that when I asked you to write a simple anti-jaywalking statute that would be perfectly just and require no judgement calls (why do we have judges and juries, if not to make judgement calls?).

Haven't heard back from you on that yet. You almost done with it?

 

[BPSCG]

Your argument is rejected.

Y'know, that last sentence sounded a little odd - not just the use of the passive voice, but the stiff, formal phrasing.

Then I imagined Arnold Schwarzenegger saying it in his classic "Terminator" voice, and suddenly, a whole bunch of things snapped into crystal-clear focus.

 

[Jocko]

Okay, what about those people who have high faith in their own judgement, but who still tend to respect authority? I fall in that category.

I thought you WERE authority.

 

[luchog]

There are two ways to look at this:
1: He is right. We need human thought and common sense involved in every aspect of enforcing the law.
2: He is wrong. If a law should not always be enforced to the letter of the law, then the law itself is flawed, and needs to be changed.

I don't think that this is necesssarily a true dichotomy.

Laws are the product of human interaction, and even the best laws are as flawed as the humans that created them. No law can be perfect, and there will always be notable exceptions and exceptional conditions; so for every law "on the books" human judgement and discretion is an important component in enforcement. But again, since humans are not perfect, that judgement and discretion is not going to be perfect. There will be abuses of the system. That is unavoidable. The trick is to design and implement a system that limits abuse while minimizing the damage to innocent individuals and to society as a whole. A good example of that is an old libertarian dillema: should someone who, upon witnessing the commission of a violent crime, enters another person's private property illegally in order to stop that crime, be prosecuted for trespassing?

Along with that, there are definitely bad laws being enforced. Most of them are based on the institutionalization of personal prejudices (some backed with bad science as their justification, some not). The Jim Crow laws are a good example; as is Prohibition in both its historical and modern forms. There are arguably many others. Others are based on misguided attempts to solve social problems by legislating symptoms of the problem. One example, Seattle's attempt to "clean up" the streets of homeless and vagrants by passing an ordinance prohibiting anyone from sitting on the sidewalk. Another is an older Vagrancy ordinance requiring everyone in the city to carry some form of legal ID, and a minimum of $20 in currency on their person. Both of these are bad laws. They do not thing to alleviate the problem, and are seemingly intended for selective enforcement and abuse.

One of the most notorious is a recent ordinance making any establishment responsible not only for the actions of patrons on the premises, but also responsible for the actions of patrons on the sidewalk outside, to a distance of one city block. These bars and clubs have no control over the actions of people outside; and it's never enforced for the upscale sports and yuppie bars, despite the incidents of violence nearby. The enforcement of this law has been extremely selective; and not done anything to resolve the issues that it was ostensibly created to control (gang and similar violence associated with hip-hop clubs). Some would say that it's an area that requires human judgement, but it's a law that was created to be selectively enforced, and is a bad law; despite the judgement of those involved in enforcing it.

 

[Freakshow]

I agree with CBL4. On the one hand, I agree that simple human judgement is a valuable part of law enforcement. On the other hand, an unenforced law is a recipe for future uneven enforcement. What if it turns out that cops are selectively enforcing a street vendor law against people who sell politically objectionable art (as happened during the Guiliani administration) or speeding laws against black and hispanic people as a lever to get access to their cars to search for other infractions (as was the policy of the New Jersey State Police for many years)? It's hard to track -- who writes reports on infractions not written?

So whilst I agree with you, I also warn that it's extremely difficult to have a system like that (which is the one we have in pretty much all western countries). Difficult enough that sometimes seems something of a miracle that democratic societies can exist at all. Constant vigilance is necessary.

Totally agreed. There is a fine line between using judgement, and abusing the ability to use judgement. I can't think of a better way to address this than the one you stated: constant vigilance.

 

[Freakshow]

If the law is changed so that an exception is made for aspirin, there's still no room for interpretation, but the ludicrous spectacle is eliminated.

Repeat for every case you feel should be made an exception of, moving to general principles instead of specific examples, and you've got an absolute law that leads to consequences you approve of.

Your argument is rejected.

The problem with this iterative approach is that it doesn't help the people who have already been punished. Its too late for them.

And how long would you expect such a process to continue? Until things are perfect? They are never going to be perfect.

I'm not arguing against constant improvement. I think that's a good thing. I am arguing against constant improvement being the only method by which the situation are addressed. The improvements are reactive in nature. Sometimes a more proactive approach is needed.

 

[Freakshow]

Amateur Scientist brought in the discussion a very serious matter when it comes to law enforcment that is called the spirit of the law. I have a slight disagreement though.

I believe that both the "letter" and the spirit of the law are taken into consideration when law is enforced and I am ceratin that fair and experienced judges can see even the most refined shades of a color and not just the color.

Somebody,Atlas I think mentioned the distinction between the first timers and the "serial criminals". There are cases in which it's crystal clear that the first timer will become a serial criminal and in those cases the judges are real severe and go by the letter of the law and frankly I agree with this attitude.

When I was reading that thread in the community forum about the deslike ( to put it politely) towards lawyers, I was thinking that people really haven't realized how easy it is to find themselves in serious legal troubles. Common citizens can find themselves involved in serious crimes just by luck. A serious car accident for example. In those cases they would ask for a good lawyer ( and they would feel sorry for all the lawyer jokes they have told) and a judge that can read between the lines and is able to judge by the spirit of law without violating its letter.

It's not as easy as it appears. You have to admit that in the majority of cases the sense of justice is subjective ( and this is the role that laws have to play in a society, it's a concesus about what is just or better, it's the final word on what is just) and depends largely on the experiences of all the implicated parts in a trial.Also, the subjectivity is proven by the fact that the sense of justice evolves, changes in time and in geographical latitude.

So, yes it depends and we must wish to have judges that are able to judge by the spirit and by the letter of the law.

Think it the other way. Two parts expect from the same person to act differently. The victim asks for the law enforcement by the letter and the victimizer appeals to the spirit of law. A good judge is able to do both by avoiding pseudo-dilemmas that are presented by both parts.

Interesting discussion but when people are involved there are not definite answers.

Cleopatra, you reminded me of something else from my days studying law enforcement, when I was going my internship. One of the cases that came through...I don't remember the details of. But the basics of it was this: Some young man had done something wrong earlier in life, and was given just a legal slap-on-the-wrist. Later, he did something much more wrong, and was now on trial for it. He was sentanced to 10 years. This judge would like to give the defendant a chance to say something before he announced the sentance. Sort of like a "last chance" to address the public and be heard before going away to jail. He would always say "Stand up Mr/Mrs [name]...Do you have anything to say to this court, before I announce your sentance?" He also in this case asked the prosecutor if he had anything to say. The prosecutor said something interesting...

"Yes, your honor. I'd like to say that I think the system failed this young man. I believe that if years ago, he could have had reasonable punishment for what he did before, he may have learned his lesson. And he might not have been in front of us again, for a much more serious crime."

Your post made me think of that.

 

[Atlas]

The prosecutor said something interesting...

"Yes, your honor. I'd like to say that I think the system failed this young man. I believe that if years ago, he could have had reasonable punishment for what he did before, he may have learned his lesson. And he might not have been in front of us again, for a much more serious crime."

Your post made me think of that.

That's a great line by a prosecutor. Sham concern and an implied insult of the judge who showed leniency and decided to give the first timer a second chance.

"Sadly, the system failed this man years ago when, for some unrelated circumstance on a lesser crime, we didn't beat the hell out of him. Please don't fail to punish this man severely this time or we're sure to see him again sometime several years hence, your honor."

 

[Melendwyr]

The problem with this iterative approach is that it doesn't help the people who have already been punished. Its too late for them.

We don't have to put any of the laws in effect until we're satisfied that what we have accurately describes the "spirit of the law".

 

[Freakshow]

That's a great line by a prosecutor. Sham concern and an implied insult of the judge who showed leniency and decided to give the first timer a second chance.

"Sadly, the system failed this man years ago when, for some unrelated circumstance on a lesser crime, we didn't beat the hell out of him. Please don't fail to punish this man severely this time or we're sure to see him again sometime several years hence, your honor."

Years later, that prosecutor wound up losing his job, due to some "legal issues". I don't recall if he wound up having to go to jail or not. But his career is over. What goes around comes around, I guess.

 

[Freakshow]

We don't have to put any of the laws in effect until we're satisfied that what we have accurately describes the "spirit of the law".

And...you see no problem with this? We should have everything be legal until we are satisfied that we have a perfect legal system in place?