Political Obligation - Why Should We Obey the Law - Thesis Example

Political Obligation - Why should we obey the law The question of why the individual should obey the law is a central dilemma of any society. Most individuals have impulses that, if succumbed to, would cause them to break the law and yet most people, most of the time tend to obey the law even when the likelihood of being caught is small. This paper will consider both why we should obey the la and why, much of the time, we do obey the law. It will consider a number of important theories, such as Rousseau's Social Contract and Marxism, as well as more recent paradigms including labeling theory. The basic thesis is that obeying the law enables people to be more free within their actions than not. Rousseau's The Social Contract was a highly influential treatise on hos a society based upon laws should work, and why it does actually work. It is a firm foundation for why people should obey the law. Within this work Rousseau suggests that the individual person gives up certain freedoms in return for the protection of society as regards much larger freedoms. For example, most people try to obey traffic laws such as stopping at a red light. This might be seen as a curtailment of their freedom to drive their car wherever they want whenever they want, but obeying red light laws preserves a much greater freedom: that of surviving your journey. Thus the individual gives up a small right in return for a much greater one. The "contract" that thus ensues between the individual and society is one that is "social" in nature. The individual agrees to obey the laws and the State, in the form of the government, police force, justice system etc. agrees to provide an environment in which people are as safe as possible and free to go about their own business. The social contract can also be understood by a consideration of those societies in which it is not present. Thus in times of anarchy, such as a civil war, individuals are free to "do" virtually whatever they want as law and order has broken down. Does this imply more freedom In a theoretical sense perhaps, but the reality of the situation is that most people are afraid for their lives much of the time. The law of the jungle is no law at all. Does this imply that the modern society, as exemplified by advanced Western countries, with sophisticated justice systems and capitalist economic paradigms are totally favorable One giant of philosophy, Karl Marx, would suggest not. Karl Marx suggested that laws were generally a codified means by which one class (the ruling) keeps everyone else (ie. you and me) in check. Marxists in general recognize that for society to function efficiently, there needs to be social order. However, they believed that in all societies except the Communist one, laws were designed to be of advantage to the wealthy. Thus the famous Marxist dictum that "property is theft". It is interesting to note that even for Marx laws were necessary, as was public obedience to them. It was the nature of those laws that Marx disagreed with, not the fact that they should exist at all. One reason the individual may find for obeying the law is the tendency for "labeling" to occur within society.Labeling theory suggests that the labels we give to individuals effects how they eventually act. Thus if a person comes from a gender or racial group that is perceived to be criminal, then they are more likely to act in a criminal way. The converse is also true - if you come from a supposedly law-abiding group - within American society, white upper class would be an example, then you are less likely to become a criminal. Having a system of theoretically objective laws in place stops such stereotyping as much as is possible. If people obey those laws then labeling is much likely to occur. For example, this author was once stopped in bookstore for acting in a supposedly suspicious manner. While I did not fit the classic profile of a "criminal", I was acting as one in the eyes of store security and so was stopped and eventually searched. In my situation I was labeled as a criminal because I was mistaken for one, and the started to act like one through wandering around the store in a suspicious manner. Crime prevention programs might well start with an attempt by society to change attitudes towards certain groups that are perceived to be more prone to crime. Using another example, it is a fact that young African-American men are more prone to be part of the criminal justice system than white women - labeling would suggest that this is one of the reasons that they do commit crime so often. People expect them to, and so they just live up to the low expectations set for them. In the case of racial profiling the supposedly objective nature of justice has broken down. Even if a young African-American man obeys the law constantly and is a model citizen, he will be perceived to be a likely criminal by many other citizens just because of his race. There are many different causes of violent crime. Some or associated with the psychology of the individual involved, others are sociologically based, as explained by various Marxist theories. Violent crime is not very common around the area where this author lives, but living in a city one must always be aware of one's surroundings. It is this" awareness" that is one of the most important effects of violent crime - in modern day society no-one can feel entirely relaxed and at ease in any area with even a moderately dense population (Merton, 1967). Again, this is an example of why laws should be obeyed. The apparent freedom offered to the individual by breaking laws will actually curtail the freedom of that individual as they will never feel safe. This author would not walk late at night in any city on my own, even if Ihe knew the neighborhood and believed it to be safe. Most people would regard this as merely being sensible, but in fact it can be seen as a wider tendency for people to be "trapped" inside their own homes at certain times of the day and night. The break down in the general tendency of people to obey the laws produces this situation. This is not a fear of violent crime being directed specifically against them, but rather being caught in the middle. Thus within gang violence, which might be seen as often resulting from a form of organized crime, stray bullets may catch innocent bystanders. This is one of the reasons that many people would not enter these areas of the city, even though they have friends and some distant family members that live there. Two types of crime, paradoxically at opposite ends of severity, are little effected by the idea of whether people generally obey the laws or not. At the extremely serious end, some kinds of violent crime, luckily these are the most unusual and rare, cannot be prepared for or protected against. Thus the spree or serial killer is by definition impossible to plan for. If one works somewhere, there is a possibility that some other worker will become psychotic and decide to kill those around him that he perceives are spiting him (Durkheim, 1947). The Columbine High School massacre is an example of this. However law abiding most members of society are (or are not) as little effect upon such killings, as they stem from the internal psyche of the person rather than outside society. A total change in human nature, thus dissolving the possibilities of loneliness and alienation studied by Durkheim, might stop such crime but this is impossible. Violent crime is, even in a society such as this one, still very rare. With a little common sense and luck a person is likely to never really experience it over the course of a lifetime. Because of the mass media attention that is given to it, for example Court TV and A&E, many people seem to have become paranoid and believed that every street corner is a likely site for a drive-by shooting, every single man is a potential serial killer. This is not the case, and the best way to counter the pernicious effects of violent crime is to put it in perspective. Again, the awareness that the vast majority of people will never commit, or come into contact with such crimes should alleviate the possibility of them disturbing the general law-abiding ethos. At the other end of the scale are laws such as car speed limits which are routinely broken by a great majority of the population. Driving any Interstate in the country a citizen will see that speed limits are routinely ignored. Does this mean that the social contract is breaking down The answer is no. For example, if the speed limit is 70 many people will drive at 80, but few will drive at 90 or 100. Thus the state protects people from speeds that are incredibly dangerous while entering into a kind of nod-and-wink compromise regarding the extra 10mph. The general safety of the public is preserved, at least in spirit, even if the strict letter of the law is being broken. To conclude, obedience to laws by individuals, while curtailing their freedom to behave exactly as they wish, actually expands the absolute range of their freedom by protecting them and providing them a generally safe society. This is a Utilitarian view of obedience to the law in which the greatest amount of happiness is created for the greatest number of people. It is thus ironic but easily understandable that those countries with the most laws, such as the United States and in Western Europe, are actually those where the citizens are most free. _______________________________________ Works Cited Durkheim, Emile. On Suicide. Free Press, New York: 1947. Hansen, Chris. "To Catch a Predator, III". Dateline NBC. February, 2006. Marx, Karl. Das Kapital. Signet, New York: 1988 Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. Simon and Schuster, 1968 Rousseau, Jacques. The Social Contract, OUP, London: 1971. Read More