Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The limits of law

By Katy Barnett - posted Friday, 22 January 2010


So, in Speed’s example of convicts who stole bread to eat, the perpetrators knew they risked getting hung or transported, but hey, they were going to starve anyway, and everyone else they knew was doing the same thing, so it was worth taking that risk. Perhaps they also calculated the risks of being caught as well. It’s all about balancing the different incentives.

For me, there would be no incentive to steal in normal circumstances. This is because I am a risk averse person. Furthermore, I have a moral objection to taking other people’s property (I’m a property lawyer, among other things). In terms of disincentives, I would not be able to practice law again. If I were caught, I would be fined, or possibly go to jail. There is nothing in my current situation which I want badly enough which would lead me to take the risk that I would be caught. On the other hand, if my children were starving and I had few other options, the tables would turn, and there might be sufficient incentive for me to steal. My moral, economic and social objections could be overridden.

A good law has to set up a good system of incentives to keep the law and disincentives to break it. It works best if there’s already moral, social and economic incentives for the law to be followed. Of course, sometimes the law itself moulds the moral, social and economic incentives, and people’s attitudes change as a result of the law.

Advertisement

I was remembering today about an incident when I was 11 or 12 where my primary school teacher acted towards my Muslim friend in a discriminatory way that would simply be unacceptable these days. People’s attitudes change as a result of law. Sometimes it’s a chicken and egg thing - did the law change the attitude, or did the attitude change the law? But if people aren’t responding well to a particular law, there’s a fair chance that no matter what the motive behind it, how well known it is or how well regulated it is, it is not a “good” law. When I say “good” law, I don’t mean that it is immoral, but simply that it just doesn’t do what it is supposed to do.

So - if one is talking about the decrease in compliance with laws, it is not simply the actions of regulators or the difficulties in finding out what the law is which is an issue. It is the nature of law itself, and the limits upon what law can achieve. Regulators themselves do not necessarily render a law ineffective, and in some cases, they can render a law more effective. It depends upon a myriad of factors, including how they are used, and what law they are enforcing.

If I had my “druthers”, I’d educate everyone about basic law, and what it can and can’t do. It’s one of the reasons I started blogging. Just for starters, though, I’ll try this post. When you say, “There should be a law against it,” think about whether it would be effective or not.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in Skeptic Lawyer on January 19, 2010.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

32 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Katy Barnett is a lawyer, blogger and lecturer at the University of Melbourne. She lives in Melbourne, Australia and blogs at Skepticlawyer.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Katy Barnett

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 32 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy