Unenforceable law and the rule of law
Posted by Eric Stein - June 7, 2006 CE @ 02:10:37 UTC
There are two different basic kinds of government - those that rule arbitrarily and those that rule through law. For the sake of argument, I will assume that rule of law is a superior form of government. In the United States, the US Constitution sets down the rules for how government is to operate. The legislative branch writes laws, the judicial branch interprets them, and the exectutive branch enforces them.
This brings up the topic of unenforced laws and worse, unenforcable laws. The stated purpose of a law is usually to either encourage an activity (usually through financial incentives) or to discourage it. Laws against murder exist to discourage people from killing each other. Then there are the laws that may claim to do something about a perceived bad behavior, but are rarely if ever enforced (but carry heavy penalties). Selectively enforced laws are just as bad - if the law is not intended to be enforced, what is it for? To intimidate the citizens, perhaps?
The fact that the commonly recognized phrase 'throw the book at' even exists is a problem. Constitutional safeguards are there to prevent tyranny - to restrict the government. When a government lets people break its laws for a long period of time, this gives them a false impression that they are not going to get prosecuted for what they currently do.
The huge body of unenforced laws that remain on the books in the US could potentially allow an extreme executive branch to turn our country into a dictatorship overnight. Not to say that that will happen, but it is legally possible.
This brings up the topic of unenforced laws and worse, unenforcable laws. The stated purpose of a law is usually to either encourage an activity (usually through financial incentives) or to discourage it. Laws against murder exist to discourage people from killing each other. Then there are the laws that may claim to do something about a perceived bad behavior, but are rarely if ever enforced (but carry heavy penalties). Selectively enforced laws are just as bad - if the law is not intended to be enforced, what is it for? To intimidate the citizens, perhaps?
The fact that the commonly recognized phrase 'throw the book at' even exists is a problem. Constitutional safeguards are there to prevent tyranny - to restrict the government. When a government lets people break its laws for a long period of time, this gives them a false impression that they are not going to get prosecuted for what they currently do.
The huge body of unenforced laws that remain on the books in the US could potentially allow an extreme executive branch to turn our country into a dictatorship overnight. Not to say that that will happen, but it is legally possible.
Post a Comment