Petty Laws

The law is serious business. When we draft a new law, we are deciding to limit the freedoms of supposedly free people. The reasons for this must be carefully thought out. Law must be the absolute last resort to fix problems in our society. I see far too many ridiculous laws that exist in our society today as a result of some people’s good, but misguided, intentions. As I’ve travelled to different countries, I’ve experienced freedoms that we don’t have in the “land of the free”, and yet these freedoms don’t intrude on the rights of the people in these lands. In Germany, no laws exist about possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages in public places; though there are laws against public intoxication and littering, which of course are potential side effects of public possession and consumption. However, why do we require the former law in the United States in addition to the two latter laws when the two latter laws suffice in Germany? Is the act of alcohol consumption wrong in and of itself? What is the difference between drinking alcohol and water? The real difference between these two acts is the possibility of public intoxication following the act. The laws against littering apply to both drinkable liquids. Now we are just addressing public intoxication. Consuming any amount of alcohol does not classify as intoxication as evidenced by the .08 blood alcohol content level required for the issuance of a Driving Under the Influence reprimand. Therefore, how would a law such as one that bans public alcohol consumption be just? As long as a person avoids intoxication, that person does not violate public intoxication laws. But even if a person were to become intoxicated, would this state necessarily make the person a threat to the public? One law should apply to this situation—which would be universal whether involving alcohol or not—and that is a law against creating a public nuisance.

When passing a new law that involves punishment of those that commit an offense, three questions must be asked: Is the specified act worthy of punishment? Will the punishment be effective? What does “effective” mean?

The effectiveness of a punishment would be defined as whether it will prevent a person from committing the crime again. To ensure this, the person being punished must agree that his or her act was wrong. Take the example of a drug dealer. There is definitely a stigma behind that label. This is a person who sells drugs and makes money off his or her buyers. Does a drug dealer do anything that other businesses—say, the tobacco companies—refrain from doing, however? If the buyers are willing, is the dealer not within his rights to sell? Does punishing someone for the act of selling make them wrong to do so? Does the dealer think it is wrong? If they are punished for selling drugs, and they don’t think they were in the wrong, would they change? Or would they see themselves as the victims of the system? What happens is this: The drug dealer is placed in jail for his crime. The drug dealer knew it was against the law, but he also decided it wasn’t wrong because he wasn’t hurting anyone and he could use the money. Being a drug dealer, he is sentenced to twenty years in prison. Twenty years. Does the act of selling a product merit losing twenty years of a person’s life? In prison, the dealer feels as though he was cheated and that the sentence was unjust—which, frankly, it is—and that the law is unfair. So when he gets out of prison, he will be less inclined to respect the law because it put him at a disadvantage. In order to avoid prison again, he becomes more violent, vowing that he would rather die than return there. As it stands now with our current drug policies, we are creating harder criminals by punishing petty offenses to the max.

I always find it difficult to broach the subject of petty law repeal, mostly because other people feel that these laws are not affecting the most important problems and that they don’t affect their lives enough. Perhaps it is a little idealist, wanting no unjust laws if I can help it. I think there is a serious obsession with punishment in our country. We feel as though everything that is “wrong” must be punished harder and harder to try to prevent it. The only crimes that should be governed and punished should be those that actually harm others directly. 

We Don't Need Simple Answers To Complicated Questions

"I think we need to re-evaluate our gun policies. We can consider imposing stricter gun regulations without throwing out the spirit of the second amendment."

"Well, where does it end? If you outlaw a certain type of gun, or limit a magazine, that's all well and good in theory. All law abiding citizens follow that. What of the criminals? How are you going to enforce that law? Go house to house? You can't be so naive!"

Perhaps you've had a similar conversation in which you propose an idea that would objectively make the world safer or better overall only to have someone respond with an hyperbolic, dooms day what-if scenario that's ultimately one big red herring.. And it's concluded with 'you're just being naive'. When did thinking big picture become naive? When did proposing an idea become 'why don't you have a complete action plan fleshed out?' I feel this has become a popular tactic for people who see the world as black and white to dismiss positions that they disagree with. Why is this? When did 'being a realist' become a viable option? When did realists ever change the world?

I get tired of outlandish hypothetical situations being drummed up in response to perfectly rational observations or proposed solutions to serious societal problems. I've come to the conclusion that it's the last gasp of a failing argument. They can't dismiss the validity of the proposed policy, but they hold onto their preconceived notion of what's right and wrong. So they ask how you would enact said idea. This question is not without merit. Certainly, eventually, you need to come up with an actionable plan, but often times this is not the goal of the objection. The goal is to render the proposition as only being viable in some liberal, socialist, utopian, hippie commune. And it's summed up with that one word: naive.

The problem is laziness. Humans want a simple solution. The problem is, in our current society, we don't have the luxury of simple solutions. We are faced with complicated problems. Abortion, stem cell research, individual freedom vs. the greater good, gun control. These issues aren't solved by a quick glance and a one liner. They take real contemplation and real debate. It's what the proper application of ethics and morality are about. We don't get the answers from a book. We don't get the answers in an hour or a day. We don't get them from our friends. They take thought and they may require adjustments along the way. We should embrace the evolution of laws and accept that the road to the right answer is a long one. It's not easy and it shouldn't be. Would it be worth it if they were? To be a realist is to resign to the fact that there's nothing you can do. To be a realist is to know the right answer and give the wrong one in the name of expediency. To be a realist is to give up. The solution to complicated questions is to acknowledge that they aren't black and white. I would rather gradually obtain the correct answer through increments than to come to the wrong answer because it's the answer at hand. That type of thinking actually prolongs our journey to solving problems. Don't be afraid of solutions that require effort. There's an objectively right answer for every moral question. There has to be. One answer always provides a more positive outcome than the next. You may not have the ultimate answer now, but be 'naive', think big picture, and one day all of us will get there. But, certainly, for all our sake, don't be a realist.