Enforcing the Law Is Inherently Violent

[Silent_Bob]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/?utm_source=atlfb

Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter believes that the United States would benefit if the debate about what laws ought to be passed acknowledged the violence inherent in enforcing them.

He writes:

Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law's violence.  Every law is violent.  We try not to think about this, but we should.  On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.

This is by no means an argument against having laws.

It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal. Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff – or the SWAT team – or if necessary the National Guard. Is this an exaggeration? Ask the family of Eric Garner, who died as a result of a decision to crack down on the sale of untaxed cigarettes. That's the crime for which he was being arrested. Yes, yes, the police were the proximate cause of his death, but the crackdown was a political decree.

The statute or regulation we like best carries the same risk that some violator will die at the hands of a law enforcement officer who will go too far. And whether that officer acts out of overzealousness, recklessness, or simply the need to make a fast choice to do the job right, the violence inherent in law will be on display. This seems to me the fundamental problem that none of us who do law for a living want to face. 

But all of us should.

On Thursday, Professor Carter will take part in panels on academic freedom and democratic culture at the Aspen Ideas Festival, cosponsored by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic.

He is astute to include "regulation" in his proposed debate––in recent decades, agencies in the federal bureaucracy that few members of the public would associate with law enforcement have assembled SWAT units that carry out paramilitary raids, often against unarmed citizens engaged in nonviolent transgressions.

Are any readers persuaded by the notion that some laws they would otherwise support are better repealed, or never passed, because the benefits do not justify the violence that is likely to be triggered, sooner or later, by attempts at enforcement?

[KBCraig]

[Tom Sawyer]

Lots of action in the comments section of the article. The Atlantic and this professor have done a good service in covering this topic. Indeed, striking at the root.

Makes me think that bringing to people's attention the fundamental principles is more important and effective then the striking the branches approach that many of our side take to. Simple truths, fundamental principles, things that a broader spectrum of people can understand and agree on. Leave the details for future debate and hashing out, once we have more on our side. I think that the Stephen Carter's and Gary Johnson's are probably more likely to have an impact.

[Tom Sawyer]

Participating in the public discourse via commenting is probably the best return on investment we have.

My comment

Thank you to The Atlantic, and more so, Stephen L. Carter.

Truly "striking the root" in pointing out that someone's good idea to shape human behavior is ultimately a call for the men with guns.

The fact that so many can gloss over the violence inherent in adding another law. Laws should be reserved for behavior that causes direct harm to others. Smoking pot or cigarettes doesn't meet that criteria. Neither does other voluntary interactions.

As a boy I remember people saying "It's a free country, he can do as he wants." You don't hear that anymore. People have been tricked into believing that they can write laws that will keep others in check, but not bite them.

The non drug users thought they could stop drug use and not harm themselves. The "no knock" raids, brought about by the drug war, have led to the death of little old ladies that had nothing to do with drugs and the militarization of most every police department in the country.

Free State Project is where I'm putting my hope for the future of freedom.

[Russell Kanning]

pointing out the gun in the room
or showing the inherent violence in the system
doesn't get any more basic than that

[Russell Kanning]

yea
think of every time they just add another regulation on business
it has to be backed by violence otherwise they will ignore it

[Free libertarian]

yea
think of every time they just add another regulation on business
it has to be backed by violence otherwise they will ignore it

  Yes. (hands clapping emoticon)

[Russell Kanning]

sometimes people look at you funny .... but you are telling them that if the government changes some rules, you can't make money the way you are right now