Many of you commented here how the Illinois now mandated moment for reflection is not practical -- how would it be enforced?There are many more examples like this.
American law is underenforced—and we like it that way. Full enforcement of every last law on the books would put all of us in prison for crimes such as "injuring a mail bag." No enforcement of our laws, on the other hand, would mean anarchy. Somehow, officials must choose what laws really matter.
Why are there dead zones in U.S. law? The answer goes beyond the simple expense of enforcement but betrays a deeper, underlying logic. Tolerated lawbreaking is almost always a response to a political failure—the inability of our political institutions to adapt to social change or reach a rational compromise that reflects the interests of the nation and all concerned parties.
That's why the American statutes are full of laws that no one wants to see fully enforced—or even enforced at all...What's going on here is that the parties all know the law is being broken, accept it, and—while almost never overtly saying so—both the "criminals" and law enforcement concede that everyone likes it better that way.
The law in question thus continues to have a formal existence, and, as we shall see, it may become a kind of zoning ordinance, enforced only against very public or flagrant behavior...The importance of understanding why and when we will tolerate lawbreaking cannot be overstated.
Lawyers and journalists spend most of their time watching the president, Congress, and the courts as they make law. But tolerance of lawbreaking constitutes one of the nation's other major—yet most poorly understood—ways of creating social and legal policy.
Almost as much as the laws that we enact, the lawbreaking to which we shut our eyes reflects how tolerant U.S. society really is to individual or group difference. Slate.com has a four-part series on American Lawbreaking linked here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175733/
Does this affect the legitimacy of our representative government?
5 comments:
Well, I guess the situation makes the government a little more laughable - I'm reminded of the "Crazy Law" books I read when I was younger that contain all kinds of ridiculous laws that have never been rescinded (a Connecticut law states that it is unlawful to sell pickles which, when dropped twelve inches, collapse in their own juice: "They should remain whole and even bounce"). There are literally thousands of these laws. But as far as legitimacy goes, I think Americans have a very good sense of which laws should be enforced, and they are perfectly capable of challenging those that they feel are unjust. Maybe it's a testimony to the effectiveness of our democracy when we can trust each other enough not to have to live up to the letter of every law and make our pickles bounce.
I would have to agree with vivi's creative description. It seems as though the government is constantly trying to make laws that, in their interpretations, are reflective of what society accepts. Superfluous laws most definitely exist, but the fact that some are purposely overlooked demonstrates the idea that the government is made to represent the people and not based on subsidiary process. This tolerance I think also comes to represent the human face of laws themselves--laws are merely words but when choices like these are made their meanings enliven and come to represent something greater--American citizens. Therefore legitimacy isn't compromised, on the contrary, it is propelled.
I agree strongly with Vivi and Sahil. As Vivi points out, some laws are so ridiculous (read: mandatory moment of silence) that they are not worth being enforced. Sheriff Andy Taylor once said on the Andy Griffith Show in the early 1960s, "If you went strictly by the book, why I don't reckon we'd have nothin' in this country but a hundred eighty million jailbirds." If we tried to enforce every single law with every single person, our law enforcement resources would be stretched so thin we wouldn't be able to enforce any laws. It's best for the government to concentrate on laws that are critical, such as civil rights laws and drug laws, and not sweat the petty stuff.
I have been listening to the boy next to me in advisory vehemently oppose this law all week. His argument was based on the lack of voice within our country. He's not a U.S. citizen--he's from Switzerland, and he thinks that it is shameful that we people do not stand up to our government. He mentioned that the government was taking small steps and gradually growing more powerful--infringing on our rights everyday.
I think that this is where the "unenforced laws" system comes into play. There are just some topics, such as prayer/reflection/ etc that Congress doesn't have the patience to argue about. When laws like these are passed--but unenforced--it doesn't make the government seem weak but wise. It gives those people who want this minute a day the chance to use it but it also provides the opportunity to ignore it without consequence for those who find it offensive. It is a clever compromise and if the government didn't practice looking the other way often then we would have a lot of mutiny. It doesn't make the government look vulnerable--but shows that it is actively prioritizing.
This is a nice post, posing the issue quite effectively. The Slate article provides more color.
Some students are objecting on principle, including one who has instituted a lawsuit. The problem is determining whom to sue! The Governor, who vetoed the bill, has stated that he will not defend the state position.
Given this, what should be the official policy of schools toward students who do not obey the rule?
Is this practical experience in political engagement? How far should the school go in enforcing this rule?
If it is truly a selective enforcement position, what determines whether a school should be tough or whether the school should wait for guidance from the courts?
Post a Comment