Following on the issue raised by the death spiral of Robert Earl Lawrence, itself an offshoot in a way of Yale lawprof Stephen Carter’s critical admonition that we should make “no law you aren’t willing to enforce by death,” Paul Gowder at PrawfsBlawg offers an excellent (and far more comprehensible) perspective on trivial law and its impact on society.
To be clear, the concern is with laws that penalize ordinary behavior—behavior that many or most people do at least sometimes, either because that behavior is consistent with social norms (smoking a joint, not coming to a complete stop before turning right on red), or because it is easy to accidentally do the behavior (violate a complicated parking sign). And the worry is that such laws, when pervasively enforced, break the connection between genuine wrongdoing (in the sense of the violation of social norms, also in the sense of doing anything actually morally wrong) and negative interactions with the legal system.
When the law routinely penalizes ordinary folks for doing things that ordinary folks in the community do, or hammers people with large fines for understandable day-to-day screwups, legal punishment stops looking like a consequence of doing bad things to others, and the law stops looking like an expression of our collective sense of how we ought to treat one another.
Instead, it starts to look like a form of taxation, or a negative lottery, in the sense that the “lawbreaker” is one who just happened to have the bad luck to be in front of an official when acting like a normal person, and now has to pay the price. (Ed. Note: broken into paragraphs for readability)
