Lawton’s Most Wanted

Something happened to me the other day that got me to thinking (well, everything that happens to me makes me think).  This particular experience got me to wondering about the nature of the connection between law and thought.  

I have three pugs, one of whom is very old.  His name is Pugsy and we think he’s about 19 years old, actually.  He’s incontinent, arthritic, blind, is prone to seizures and has almost no teeth.  With a fenced back yard, the pugs have plenty of room to roam in relative security.  The other two jump, play and run around, but Pugsy can’t even make it up and down the back stairs by himself.  We have to carry him in and out.  He’s about as feeble as a dog can get and still be able to walk.  

The other morning, the back gate was open.  I don’t know why, but it was.  I didn’t realize this when I let Pugsy out.  Now he has a habit of barking when he wants back inside (which these days is almost immediately after we bring him out).  So when several minutes passed without a peep from him, something was clearly wrong.

Pugsy was gone and the gate was wide open.  In a panic, I ran outside to look for him.  No sign of him.  So I got in the car and drove down the street looking for him.  I found him in the back of an animal control truck.  The guy was on my street responding to another animal call.  There was Pugsy, shaking, confused, and pathetic in the back of this meat wagon.  After some wrangling I managed to talk the guy into giving me my dog back.  He still wrote me a ticket; fine, whatever.  But what really incensed me about all of this was that a ticket for a dog roaming at large required a mandatory court appearance.  

I went down to the court house to see about just paying the fine.  I was told that there are no exceptions for this charge.  “It’s the law,” they explained to me.  I must appear before a judge.  People who go rocketing up and down my street like they’re acting out Grand Theft Auto can just go and pay a ticket, no questions asked.  But I have to go and stand next to murderers, rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers just to explain to a judge why my 19-year-old toothless dog and I are not a clear and present danger to society.

Yes, my people, I am the new Kingpin of crime in Southwest Oklahoma.  I’m Lawton’s most wanted, y’all!  Ding Dong ain’t got nuthin on me!

I’ve long held that the reason people think about things is so they don’t have to think about them.  That is, they think about something for the minimum amount of time it takes for it to become automatic.  Take driving a car for example.  Once you get the hang of it you do it without conscious, deliberate thought.  When you come up to an intersection where you have to turn, you just flip the turn signal.  It’s done automatically, without thinking.  

My overall belief on this subject is that the reason people make laws is so they don’t have to make decisions.  Their judgments are automatic and do not require original thought, only minimal interpretation.

I suppose it’s a defense mechanism against a community that is too large.  If a community grows beyond it’s ability to manage itself, they must agree on some sort of standard.  The burden of making judgments increases with the population of any community.  At some point, either from frustration or economy (not enough time), rules are created.  This creates relief for those responsible for making judgments.  They don’t have to consider what to do anymore.  They can always fall back on the rule.   

This creates a trap that’s very easy to fall into.  Making a rule to replace original thought makes one’s life easier.  They’re not unlike macros for day-to-day existence.  Instead of having to make judgments over and over for similar situations, they create a rule that applies broadly for similar situations.  

Something happens collectively to societies that replace creative judgment with law.  In creative judgments, there is an intimacy with the problem to be solved that makes it easier to answer the question fundamental to all judgments:  Is this right?

If you are forced to creatively judge something, the question of right and wrong is made very simple.  You are aware of the details and circumstances around the event you have to judge, and you know right from wrong.  The more a person, group or society relies on rules, the harder it is for them to gauge right and wrong.  

Perhaps the problem of law replacing creative judgment has to do with size.  In smaller groups (village-sized, for example) the person responsible for making judgments (chief or elder, etc.) can afford to make calls on a case-by-case basis.  In smaller groups, the senior individual knows all of the members of the group and can grasp all of the nuances and interpersonal relationships within the group.  Their responsibility for making judgments is relatively small in scope.  

If you make a call in a situation, you know you’re applying your moral standard to the judgment.  But this process is more demanding.  It requires more time and greater effort from the person responsible for making the judgment.  Since people follow the path of least resistance, they will typically fall back on the law to absolve them of the responsibility of making a moral judgment.  

Now before you judge me as an anarchist, I will say that some law is good.  There should be laws against obvious crimes, like rape, child molestation, murder, etc.  But no law, no matter how well crafted or intentioned, should replace moral judgment.