9/15- Means to Ends Criminalization
The first reading by Edwards called “Laws that are made to be broken” proposes the identification principle as a way to justify means to criminalize an action. Edwards examines different types of laws and how different people in the system should act according to their position to ensure that the identification principle is met and followed. At the beginning of his piece, Edwards creates the distinction between two types of laws: laws meant to be followed and laws meant to broken, the first on which are the only ones he deems acceptable (593). The purpose of laws meant to be followed, or LMFs, are to ensure compliance while laws meant to be broken (LMB) are to ensure conviction, usually in cases where if these laws were not in place, it would be difficult to convict someone for a crime. Some examples of LMBs, which Edwards deems harmful, includes Edward’s own examples sexual acts between minors or possessing information that can be used for the purpose of terror (599). These acts are criminalized in order to catch those who may be coercing or planning bad things, but are not necessarily “criminal”in it of themselves.
This distinction is important, for the reason that LMFs are deemed appropriate but LMBs are not is because of the identification principle and ideas such as rule of law and pre-identification. Under the identification principle, it is understood that everyone — law-makers, police, jury, and judges — have their role granted to them by law and overstepping those “boundaries” given to them is not following the rule of law and going beyond their power. The basics of rule of law state that no one person is above the law and all members of society are under the same laws, including those just mentioned, and therefore cannot break or bend the laws as a result of their position. When a law-maker makes a LMB, they are going beyond their role of making laws and dipping their toes in the conviction part of the system, which means they are abusing their powers as law-makers and expanding upon their duties unlawfully.
Another issue discussed in this piece was pre-identification of individuals who may be suspected of a crime. When the members of the system, listed above, make decisions and try to influence others or their actions based on appearances rather than evidence like they are supposed to when assigned to their role (595). An example of this would be when a police officer believes that the person with tattoos instigated a fight and charges them with assault before looking into the situation, a case where a person in office may try and convince others to arrest a member of society, or even when an arrest is made before compiling evidence to make said arrest. Their are various ways to inappropriately pre-identify someone that explains a little bit more of the identification principle and its application.
There are various ways to examine the means to the ends regarding criminalization, and the identification principle is one of those ways. The identification principle allows for only laws that encourage compliance and order and explains why laws that are meant for a conviction are harmful and an unjustified over-reach of power. This principle supports the idea that laws made for the sake of supporting a conviction or act as almost a facade for another crime or wrongdoing should not be allowed or acceptable.
It is interesting to read this perspective on laws and the judicial system, but it is a bit hard to see the practicality behind it and whether or not public support can grow behind it, especially as progressive ideas become more mainstream and in the spotlight. My mind is not completely made up on this topic so I am looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts on this as well as Clark’s piece because I am very interested to see how people understood and perceived these arguements.
Edwards, James. (2017). Laws That are Made to be Broken. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 587–602.
