Hate the law, not law enforcement
By SamWednesday, April 30th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I am a criminal, and with high probability, so are you. Whether it be driving over the speed limit, drinking underage, littering, jaywalking, pirating music, or any number of other misdemeanors, most of us have been guilty at one point or another if not regularly. This raises the question of surveillance; since many of these crimes are public, if “big brother” was watching over you at all times, we would all be regularly fined large amounts.
One possible conclusion that could be drawn from this observation is that increased surveillance in the form of CCTV cameras and EZ-pass speeding tickets are a bad idea because they would lead to the enforcement of laws that people regularly break. This view seemed to be held by a number of people during yesterday’s seminar. This belief was defended with a cynicism against government; its proponents argued that “stupid” laws exist, will continue to exist, and slowly encroach on our freedom as improved technology leads to increased enforcement.
Perhaps I have a naive faith in democracy, but for some reason I’m not willing to believe the idea that a politician supporting regularly enforced $1,000 fines for littering would ever win a reelection campaign. While one possible political solution is to avoid surveillance or not to enforce stupid laws, I would prefer to see the government modernize the stupid laws so they can coexist with modern enforcement methods. I believe that the government has an obligation to minimize crime in as effective and economically efficient way as possible, and these forms of modern technology can help accomplish those goals while minimizing invasion of privacy. The main point of this post is to address effective and fair law enforcement, not privacy; I am working under the assumption that surveillance in public areas is not an unfair invasion of privacy because the public is definitionally not private.
With 20th century enforcement techniques like police cars using radar detectors to catch speeders, penalties have to be relatively high to deter the crime due to the low probability of being caught. Being fined this amount every time the EZ-pass catches you going 1 mph over the speed limit seems unfair. This law could be modernized to lower the penalty for speeding through an EZ-pass since you will be caught every time you speed on the tollways. As an institution, speeding laws are good because they protect the safety of all drivers on the road. Improving their enforcement would improve public safety at low economic cost. If the speed limit is unreasonably low, democratic forces will hopefully lead to an adjustment in these laws.
While I disagree with many laws on the books, I support law in general. I may occasionally engage in civil disobedience along with my fellow highway drivers, but I don’t fear the day when the government can effectively make me obey the speed limit. Law enforcement is intended to make our lives safer, even if individual laws sometimes stray from this ideal. We should spend our energy engaging the democratic process to oppose the laws we disagree with rather than opposing law enforcement.