Arguments for stricter legal enforcement and regulation

Strict Law

The Need for Stricter Laws

The fact that societies needs are changing almost as rapidly, though perhaps not as drastically, as the technologies the drive modern society are developing is fairly self-evident. From new technologies lowering emissions in cars to faster uploading and downloading speeds enabling even greater degrees of data transfer over the Internet (not to mention the advent of the Internet itself), the world is rapidly changing, and often governmental policies are too slow in catching up. One area of supreme concern in this regard is in the field of law enforcement, where laws -- especially in certain areas -- have not matched the pace of society in their development. The Internet provides one example of this; from piracy to identity theft to espionage, the Internet has created many vulnerabilities without adequate laws to protect society and its citizens (Van Eeten & Bauer 2009). Stricter laws are needed in this and other areas in order to maintain order and public safety.

The Internet can also be a highly useful tool to law enforcement agencies and personnel, of course. A recent study proposing and examining a WikiCrimes Internet-based database determined that such a tool would be immensely useful both to low enforcement agencies and to citizens themselves, aiding in the detection and the prevention of crime (Furtado et al. 2010). The study also notes, however, the depreciation in the value of the information when sources are made anonymous and submission of information is opened to the general public (Furtado et al. 2010). Stricter laws regarding identification during Internet access, as well as limitations on the privacy rights of criminal records, would allow the WikiCrimes site to become even more useful to law enforcement.

In his decades-old yet still highly relevant book Critique of Legal Order: Crime Control in Capitalist Society, Richard Quinney notes that, "it is usual in any discussion of law to ignore the fact that the legal ideal itself is an ideology" (Quinney 2002, pp. 139). This statement comes as Quinney is developing his argument about the ideological mind control practiced by capitalist societies on their citizens, and can be seen as something to view rather negatively from Quinney's perspective. On the contrary, however, this observation logically demands a stricter application of legal doctrine, if legal doctrine is to be considered an ideology. The less strict and pervasive this ideology is, the weaker it is; if we as a society wish to subscribe to an ideology of legality (as the rate of litigation suggests most citizens do), this ideology ought to be as complete and perfect as it can possibly be.

Quinney's attack on the power structure is correct, however, in its assessment of the powerful and elite classes that develop the laws as considering themselves above that law. This can be seen both in law enforcement agencies and in the corporate and political worlds, in very different yet surprisingly similar ways. The abuse of power is a temptation that is succumbed to all too often in both groups; one recent study of an unidentified Midwestern police force found that TASERS had become so effective at subduing resistant suspects and maintaining officer safety that worries arose regarding increased reliance on these devices (DeLone & Thompson 2009). The potential for abuse of TASERS has been well documented in other incidents by the mass emdia; stricter enforcement methods would ensure that officers are less often in situations that warrant their use, and less prone to use them.