Posted on 06/29/2016 9:12:12 AM PDT by Heartlander
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...
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
(1) Mere violation of the law is rarely a sufficient justification for the use of force, let alone deadly force. Deadly force usually requires a threat to the officer's safety, to public safety, or some other sufficiently compelling justification.(2) Regardless, the "crime" that justified Eric Garner's death was not selling untaxed cigarettes, it was being perceived as threatening by a police officer. And as has been seen repeatedly, there is no requirement for an actual threat (or indeed an actual crime) to justify that police officer's perception. The issue is not the law, but the discretion given to law enforcement in enforcing the law. While I suppose you could argue that "more laws means more opportunities for police officers to feel threatened," the low incidence of police homicides (or violence generally) in enforcing white collar crimes suggests the issue is not the laws, it's the suspects.
Yup. It all comes down to sanctioned threat of violence.
Which points at the absurdity of gun bans: threatening violence for owning that which is owned to stop those threatening violence.
Of course enforcement of law is inherently violent, or rather, all law enforcement is backed by the promise and threat of, ultimately, violence.
At some point, to enforce law against a non-compliant, actively rebelling perp, the cops must use physical force.
Where violence is not required there is no need for government at all.
Government IS violence. Too many people think that it’s OK to do violence if delegated to a government, but that’s ethically no different from hiring a hitman.
I’ve always said this, but somewhat more succinctly:
“EVERY public policy is ultimately enforced AT THE BARREL OF A GUN.”
You’d be surprised at how many people give you the crazy eye until you spell it out for them.
I have said this for years. Everyone asks for new laws against this or that. Trifle’s really. But do you know what you are really asking Law Enforcement officers to do? Even as simple as texting laws or seatbelts or lawn enforcement stuff. It can get something broken and somebody killed so your sensibilities are not offended.
Legitimate force is not violence. The state has the right to protect itself, and to enforce laws. It has the right to use force responsibly.
Highly paid professors have the right to shut their stupid mouths.
Citizen versus Leviathan - it’s like “Bambi Meets Godzilla” but with less suspense.
I first read Stephen L. Carter more than 20 years ago and found his points of view impressive.
it’s legal violence aka coercion but violence nonetheless.
“Legitimate force is not violence.”
It most certainly is. Particularly because you aren’t the one who gets to decide if violence is needed.
Paraphrasing Jefferson, “government is not about reason. It is about force.”
In short, government is a gun.
bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.