Does Disrespect for minor laws lead to disrespect for major laws? I ask this because while having lunch, I observed something very disquieting: two young women, both pushing baby prams, and with other young children in tow, walked right across an intersection (light was green). The warning signal was clearly flashing: “RED-DO NOT WALK”, yet both put themselves and their children at risk. What makes people behave so stupidly? I mean, crosswalks and signals were set up for a reason-to save lives! Yet these two ignoramuses blithely stroll across-as if a speeding car could stop on a dime. Which leads to the bigger question: you grow up-watching your parents ignore numerous little laws-like ‘do not run red lights’, do not dump trash here, do not play loud music, etc. Does this mean that such a child will regard ALL laws (like don’t kill people) as beneath them?
I have always believed that Americans are hypocritical-we pass laws against all kinds of activities, that most people regard as permissible. We spend billions persecuting people for using marijuana, yet ignore the societal consequences of gross disrespect for fundamental human decency. In sum: why pass laws that people have no intention of obeying?
Moved to GD for debate.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
No; I regard major laws for an entirely different reason than minor laws: Minor laws I obey becuse it’s the right thing to do. Major laws I obey because I don’t want to suffer jail time, or in some cases, death.
I think somebody who scoffs at crosswalks may still refrain from gunning down people indiscriminately.
Because some people like to think that they can control other people’s lives. If you don’t follow our rules and you get caught, we will fine you and jail you, to make us feel like we’re in control. Thats always been my take at least.
Disregard for the “walk/don’t walk” lights is often a sign of intelligence. There is simply no reason to stand around like an idiot when there is no danger from crossing a street just because a light tells you not to walk. People should be commended for using common sense and for disregarding laws that make no sense.
I’m with Renob, mostly. I don’t think ignoring minor laws in and of itself is likely to lead people to ignore major laws. Most non-sociopaths know the difference between jaywalking and aggravated murder, and live their lives accordingly. But ignoring minor laws can have a corrosive effect on the overall law-abiding outlook of a community if lots of people do it all the time. That’s the thinking behind community-based policing, which has had some successes in places like NYC.
If the law in question is dumb and serves no socially-useful function under all circumstances, it can be changed, and probably will be, if enough people gripe. U.S. Grant once said something like, “The best remedy for a bad law is its rigorous enforcement.”
If you choose to ignore a minor law because compliance would be a waste of time or foolish, you may still get ticketed or cited if a cop sees you. And if the case went to trial (unlikely), you might offer the defense that, “C’mon, Your Honor, obeying that law under those circumstances would be dumb,” but you might still get convicted and fined. In a democracy, no one has the right to pick and choose which laws to ignore and then claim complete impunity when caught.
I’m generally a law-abiding person. I believe that the concept of the rule of law is one of the greatest contributions of Western civilization. I teach my sons that they have to use their own best judgment and, far more often than not, obey the law. But not always. They’ll have the chance to make their own choices when they get older.
If disregard for minor laws led to disregard for major laws, would anybody follow the major laws? If that was the case, I think we would have a lot more theft and murder than we actually do. Most people ignore minor laws - they jaywalk, roll through stop signs, speed (in most places I’ve driven, the speed limit is more of a minimum) and so on. Once in a while, those choices result in tragedy, but the vast majority of the time, there is no consequence at all, so people ignore them. I suppose that teaches their children that it’s okay to ignore some laws, but almost everybody is able to understand the difference between breaking a minor law and a major one.
Before this “debate” progresses further, point out the law in the jurisdiction in question that makes what the women did illegal? While the flashing Don’t Walk signal may have been warning them that the light would soon turn yellow, then red, so far as I know, entering the intersection as a pedestrian is not illegal under those conditions.
Just this evening, I almost ran over some idiot who decided to cross the road 50 feet in front of a pedestrian crossing.
Wasn’t part of Rudy Guiliani’s civic clean-up campaign in New York a plan to crack down on minor infractions of the law, on the theory that it might catch major criminals as well as minor criminals becuase the major criminals wouldn’t sweat the small stuff?
Yes, he did. Here’s a link about it:
There are some interesting articles by Sylvia Chenery and Ken Pease on this matter. Their findings would seem to indicate that while disrespect for minor laws in itself is not a predictor of disregard of major laws, there is more likelihood that ‘major’ criminals will also do a lot of small stuff.
I hope this is the right link but I’m not 100% sure as I can’t open pdf’s on this computer. If it is, then it makes for interesting reading. There are also some follow-up studies in a similar area.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/brf199.pdf <----- It’s a pdf!!!
In this instance, the woen were miway across, and a driver had to stand on his brakes to stop (his light was green). As I say, what these women did was more than stupid-they know the light was green, and they put their children at risk. :eek:
I think it’s the opposite for me. Major laws I obey because it’s the right thing to do (murder, embezzlement, rape, selling drugs). Minor laws I obey because I don’t want to suffer fines or jail time (minor speeding, jaywalking, petty theft).
Well, absent the harsh punishments I would almost certainly fall back on the ‘right thing to do’ restraint where large crimes are concerned; self-protection just kicks in before morality in my case. And I’m just not worried about getting a ticket for going five over, or for jaywalking of all things, so the fear of punishment doesn’t enter into it, for me. (Petty theft is another matter, straddling the line somewhat, but mostly a moral issue.)
In support of this very valid point, I’d point out that in several communities I’ve lived, what D.S. Young describes here is precisely what the law is. Consider a light with a 2.5-minute duration:
0:00:00 Light green, lower green-white “WALK” sign steadily illuminated.
0:02:10 Light green, upper red “DON’T WALK” sign begins flashing
0:02:25 Light turns yellow, ‘DON’T WALK’ sign continues to flash.
0:02:30 Light turns red, steady illumination of upper red ‘DON’T WALK’ sign
Here, the message from a flashing “DON’T WALK” sign is, “You have 20 seconds to finish getting across this intersection. If you have not begun crossing, wait. If you have, prepare to clear the intersection.” Unwritten connotation: “If you have the kind of emergency that requires you cross with this light, run.”
And it’s no more illegal than failure to watch out for fog as directed by signs on the afternoon of a sunny day would be.
Coming from where and doing what? I’ve seen more than one driver have the attitude that if he’s got a green light, he has the right of way to execute his left turn over pedestrians in a crosswalk obeying the light.
I have no idea what this means. Traffic laws aren’t really instituted by control freaks. They’re necessary just to have a way to get around without a lot of carnage. Or is this supposed to reflect the mindset of stupid people who cross against the light?
This would be a sound statement if a lot of this activity wasn’t blatantly in the way of traffic, which is probably more what the OP was getting at. We’re not talking about people looking both ways and saying, what the hell. We’re talking about dumb people just toddling out in front of moving cars.
The link gives a different explanation - although I can easily imagine Rudy using that logic.
Yes, disrespect for minor laws is the start of lawlessness. Or awareness of situational ethics. Pushing a pram into a vacant intersection against a red light is rational. There are many uncontrolled intersections in the world where you have to make the identical decision, which you are authorized to handle all by your own wits.
But you are right, once you let go of the idea that certain laws were conceived to cover all situations, then you gain a little perspective on all the other laws.