"Laws don't prevent crime. They exist only

[LibDemAlways]

to punish after the fact." Just received that response to something I posted on a friend's Facebook about the reasons for so much gun violence in America. I had cited lax or non-existent laws and spineless lawmakers owned by the NRA. What do you make of the assertion that laws don't deter crime and how would you have responded? Just curious.

[kestrel91316]

1. BS. Laws make it clear what is acceptable to society and what isn't.

Anyone with the mind of an adult rather than that of a spoiled child gets it and learns that laws exist to protect us all and should be obeyed (bad laws notwithstanding).

The social compact is how we come to consensus about acceptable behavior. If you don't respect that consensus, you are essentially not part of the community.

[LibDemAlways]

2. Thanks. I thought it was total bs. Glad I'm not alone.

[Link Speed]

13. I know a few career criminals

Laws don't mean shit to most of them.

They are fully aware of the illegality of what they are doing, they just don't care. Most of them are bookies, con men, drug dealers and growers.

[Lee-Lee]

16. Yep. 90% of people don't need laws to tell right and wrong

On basic stuff- rape, murder, etc. Laws about things that seem harmless like owning a vending machine without a permit or not registering your car are a different ball game.

The remaining 10% do- some of them will be deterred by laws, some simply don't care. And with most it is a mix, they will only tolerate so much risk/reward ratio, and will avoid crimes more likely to be punished and get harsher sentences. Drugs and alcohol will affect that judgement a lot in that 10%.

[kestrel91316]

19. Of course. But if something isn't illegal and somebody does it, there is no basis for

telling them to stop or punishing them.

Anarchy is a horrible idea and ALWAYS fails.

[Lee-Lee]

21. Oh I fully agree

But the body of law is really only needed to deter a small percentage, and punish that small percentage it doesn't deter.

[BlueJazz]

3. (90 percent of laws are simply "do unto others...etc" most of what's left is "Do no harm"

My personal experience is most Democrats and almost all Atheists don't need somebody or something tell them what is harmful to society and what is not. They have learned by just being alive.

[WinkyDink]

4. It's a pretty asinine comment. Most people are put off by the thought of prison.

[LibDemAlways]

8. Agreed. My husband for one. His

biggest fear is being accused of a crime. That's what I told the guy on FB. There are no shortage of people not anxious to experience the inner workings of the justice system.

[treestar]

5. Some laws exist as an attempt to prevent other crimes

Gun control would fall under that.

[Lee-Lee]

6. It had an element of truth to it

Laws don't stop crime, or we would have no crime. The threat of punishment, mostly after the fact, deters some crime.

The more accurate thing is that the police don't really exist to stop crime. Very rarely, in fact, is a crime in progress stopped. 95% or better of LE is tracking down parties after the fact to let the courts punish.


Likewise, the police don't exist, nor have an obligation, to stop and specific crime or protect you as an individual. Instead they exist to provide a level of deterrence, generated by tacking down those who violate the law and punishing them, to keep crime down to a level that society finds acceptable.

[PoliticAverse]

7. The issue is complicated and one not completely settled...

but for many people the answer is yes, laws (more so the certainty of punishment for
violating the laws) prevent them from committing crime. The problem is most
criminals apparently don't think they are likely to be caught or punished and so
for them laws don't provide discouragement.

For best deterrence effect the law must be known by as many people as possible,
the likelihood of getting caught violating the law must be a realistic possibility and the
punishment for the violation must be severe enough and likely to be administered.

[randome]

9. 'Deter', yes. 'Prevent', no.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[LibDemAlways]

12. Interesting distinction. Agree.

[Lee-Lee]

10. What is the old saying? "A lock only exists to keep an honest man honest"

[phleshdef]

11. Well then, we shouldn't bother outlawing murder, theft, child abuse, rape or anything else.

[JHB]

14. What's his yearly budget for speeding tickets?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Lower than my pot bill in college, I'm sure.

[B2G]

15. Laws don't prevent crime in cases like Alexis.

Or career criminals, the criminally insane, etc.

You know, the exact type of people who are predisposed to commit them in the first place. And I'm talking about violent crime, not victimless crime.

[FarCenter]

17. Laws also create crime -- If there weren't a law against it, it wouldn't be a crime

[Lee-Lee]

18. True. In fact there are so many laws we have all broken some

And don't think that this is not by design- when there is always something you can charge someone with, the power rests with the person empowered to decided if your "crime" gets punished.

[FarCenter]

24. I'd bet that well over half people who drive to work, have broken the law by the time they arrive.

[LanternWaste]

27. The actual 'illegals'.

The actual, rather than politically-nominated 'illegals'.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. There's a difference between regulatory law and punitive law.

There's an argument to be had that punitive law doesn't really prevent or deter crime, that criminals in the act of committing a crime (especially a violent crime) aren't thinking about the consequences of their actions or potential punishment.

However, punitive law is hardly the only type of law out there. There's also regulatory law, which by attempting to regulate certain industries--such as the sale and manufacture of firearms--it seeks to lessen the chance of crime happening.

Things such as criminal background checks and restriction of sales of certain types of firearms fall under regulatory law. They have nothing to do with punitive law.

[Lee-Lee]

22. Except to have teeth, those laws have to be punitive. Gun laws are.

Most regulatory law on industries just results in fines and not criminal charges. See banking, most environmental laws, etc.

Mandatory background check laws are, by design, punitive and have criminal punishments for those who violate- be they individuals or individuals acting on behalf of a company.

As an example the laws banning straw purchases to get around background checks, dealing firearms without a license, selling a gun across state lines without a license, etc... those are all most definitely punitive laws that result in criminal charges (not often enough, since nobody is enforcing) when violated.

Assault weapon bans are most certainly punitive laws, enforced just like a ban on controlled substances. Not regulatory.

They are not treated at all like regulatory law.

[Jamaal510]

23. Laws don't prevent crime, but they help deter people

from doing various illegal activities.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Our prisons are gushing with the not-prevented

[LanternWaste]

26. There are seven things I'd do if they were legal. They're not, so I don't.

There are seven things (just off the top of my head) I'd do if they were legal. They're not, so I don't.

I am deterred from doing so...

[markpkessinger]

28. I think the answer is . . .

. . . that while it is true that laws don't prevent all crimes, and certainly not those committed by truly determined criminals, they are intended, as the saying goes, to "keep honest people honest."

[markpkessinger]

30. Laws are rather like locks on doors . . .

We put locks on doors knowing, in most cases, that if someone really wants to break in, they will find a way. Thus laws, like locks, are intended to keep the honest person honest.

[markpkessinger]

31. I would ask your friend . . .

What purpose, then, does punishing crime serve, if not to deter others who might be similarly tempted?

[LibDemAlways]

33. Excellent point. Thanks for the

thoughtful responses. Have to say the comment was a bit disconcerting. Don't have any idea who the guy is who posted it (friend of a FB friend) but it sounds like he was just blowing smoke.

[GaYellowDawg]

32. That is simply wrong.

There are a lot of people who don't break various laws because of the potential penalties. That's deterrence. How else can deterrence be defined except as a type of prevention? In fact, Webster's dictionary defines deterrence as "the act of making someone decide not to do something : the act of preventing a particular act or behavior from happening"

If that person had said "laws don't abolish crime" then that would be true. The answer to that truth is, so stinking what? Every single crime deterred by a law is a good thing. The idea that a law must prevent 100% of crime in order to be useful is an incredibly moronic one.

Further, except in cases of "three strikes" or "first offender" type laws, the punishment - e.g., sentencing - is a different aspect of any criminal case than deciding whether a law has been broken.

Someone out there is an ignorant berk.

[PETRUS]

34. ...

"The law is an adroit mixture of customs that are beneficial to society, and could be followed even if no law existed, and others that are of advantage to a ruling minority, but harmful to the masses of men, and can be enforced on them only by terror."

-Peter Kropotkin

[kentuck]

35. How many people would drive 50 mph in a school zone?

If there were no laws?