Several recent events have resulted in cries for more laws to prevent those events from happening. The Parkland FL shooting is an excellent example. Would more laws prevent future school shootings? We do not believe so. There is already a law against killing someone. There is already a law against trying to kill someone. There is already a law against taking a gun into a school. In fact, the shooter has already been charged with a total 34 different violations of laws.
The reality is that criminal laws and punishments are deterrents, not preventatives. If someone decides to act criminally, then the deterrents of laws are ineffective, no matter how many of them there are. More laws would not result in better behavior.
Imagine a criminal behavior as being represented by a box, like shown below. How many laws against murder would be required to fill the box? One. How about “Thou shalt not kill.”? Should be enough, right?
|
MURDER |
What if we surrounded this box with other boxes that are meant to support the law against murder, like shown below? Do you think that a person who decides to murder someone is going to say, “Wait a minute; I can’t murder someone because I can’t get past those little laws surrounding the crime I want to commit”? Not likely.
|
MURDER |
||||
Even if more laws won’t prevent a crime, what’s the harm in trying? It at least looks like you are trying to do something rather than not doing anything, right? Not a good plan! The problem with creating more laws is that every law is a restriction of a freedom. More laws = less freedom. If criminals by definition do not obey the laws, then who is restricted by more laws? The law-abiding citizen. More laws are not a solution to crime.
If more laws are not the solution, then what can be done to prevent crime? Good question.
Send your ideas to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will post your suggestions.