Edward’s, “Laws that are Made to be Broken”
Type 1
In James Edwards, “Laws that are Made to be Broken,” he approaches the issue of the means and ends of criminalization. He starts by stating his opposition to laws that tend to target individuals. According to Edwards, these laws are unjust, and are “laws that are made to be broken.” These laws are often put into place to attempt to criminalize those that are often difficult to criminalize. These people include planners and manipulators that are often difficult to prove guilty. He gives a simplified example to attempt to prove his point, which is to think about screwdrivers being illegal to own. If one breaks into someone’s home with a screwdriver, this is enough to criminalize an individual, because the proof is in the screwdriver that was already illegally owned, therefore it shows the person committed a crime. To Edwards, these types of laws are wrong, in comparison to laws that are made to be followed. This laws include laws against murder as well as laws against the actual action of breaking into someone’s home, which to Edwards are just laws.
According to Edwards, the problem with the laws that are made to be broken is that they violate what he calls the Identification Principle. He gives an example of the authority of police is which, “Police constables lawfully arrest p for some offence without a warrant only if they suspect p of committing that offence, and only if they have reasonable grounds for the suspicion” (Edwards 594). This is saying that one should only be subjected if authorized officials decide you should be subjected. Therefore, a simplified example could be if a teacher attempted to expel a student from the school. According to the Identification Principle, it is not the authority of the teacher to do this, but of the principle. If the principle is believes there is enough evidence to expel the student, then they may do so. At the top of page 596, Edwards gives an example of how the laws that are made to be broken violate this principle. In the example, the police officers is going into the situation believing an individual ought to be convicted, thus he looks for evidence to convict him. This person is already guilty in the cops mind and identifies this person as someone who ought to be convicted. However, Edwards points out that it is not the police officers role to find this person guilty. It is a judge’s role to convict the person if they deem necessary.
According the Edwards, the laws that are made to be broken violate the Identification Principle by how people not in authority give themselves the role to convict others. These laws have a lack of transparency, and they increase the risk that individuals will be ambushed by the law. These laws also allow biases of authority officials to remain hidden as well as increase publicity. What this means is that if a person is proved guilty by the state before having their trial. there is not much that person can really do. In summation, in any situation where the state treats an individual as guilty without the sufficient evidence violates the Identification Principle.
This is something we are seeing very often in today’s society. With the social injustices happening in our country, we have seen police officers give themselves the authority Edwards writes about, to murder people they deemed guilty. What do you all think?
Edwards, James. (2017). Laws That are Made to be Broken. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 587–603.
