Posted on

Does honesty have a place in the law?

Lilly (Y11), discusses the importance of honesty in law and whether the practice of Law and the Justice System needs honesty to function.

When considering this question, it is tempting to immediately think of the skilful, yet exploitative nature in which lawyers can bend any law or lunge into any loophole which will win their case, thus concluding that honesty most definitely does not fit into law. This narrative has been one that is heard in stories stretching back centuries; if we stretch back three, to the words of 18th century poet John Gay, he describes this as follows:

I know you lawyers can with ease,

Twist words and meanings as you please;

That language, by your skill made pliant,

Will bend to favour every client;

That ’tis the fee directs the sense,

To make out either side’s pretence.

Now, it is incorrect to say that there is no truth in this. If we think about why lawyers are hired in the first place, it is obviously to find ways in which the law can be used to favour their client. It is doubtful that many people would hire a lawyer and tell them to find whatever they believed to be the most honest plan of action to take, rather than what will let them walk free. In other words, a lawyer’s job in essence is to manipulate the legal terms and conditions in order to present a client who seems like an innocent person in front of a jury, but perhaps looks more like a thief when they close the doors of the court behind them.

 

 

The law is a set of codes, and the program that the codes feed in to allows for our society to be regulated and run smoothly.

 

 

To really understand this question, we have to strip the very concept of law back to its basics. The Oxford Dictionary recognises law as “the system of rules which a particular country or community recognises as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.” In essence, the law is a set of codes, and the program that the codes feed in to allows for our society to be regulated and run smoothly. This view of society as fairly binary, (right or wrong), does not allow any scope for honesty, therefore, it could be said that the law is much like a computer program with lawyers being the coders, operating the whole show.

However, with the risk of sounding like we live in some sort of dystopian novel controlled by an IT department of lawyers, lets look at why this idea is flawed. This stripped-down view of law to its basic components is very different to our unfortunately much less simple reality, where honesty must have a purpose in law. If you cut right to the heart of law, you see that honesty is in fact an integral part of its composition. It’s no mistake that one swears to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” at a trial. This reflects not just the presence, but the necessity of truth in law.

Yet even so, a necessity for honesty doesn’t necessarily translate to there being a guarantee of honesty. Every single human is dishonest at some point (if not many points) during their lives. On the whole, this dishonesty manifests itself in the form of white lies, which are, on the whole, harmless. It is only for a smaller portion of society that these present themselves as serious crimes. But, this is the important part. The very system of law only works when assuming that human beings are honest most of the time. If we were the opposite, i.e. dishonest most of the time, the system of law as we know it would not be able to function, and instead we would probably be living under a system where the means of control were strictly military. But conversely, if human beings were intrinsically honest, this would mean that we wouldn’t need law at all, and would probably live more in something similar to the computer analogy mentioned earlier. The assumption that we are honest most of the time means that the law functions by the system of proving someone to be dishonest, reflected in the well-known phrase “innocent until proven guilty”. Can you imagine if humans were recognised to be dishonest most of the time by the law? This would not only blur the lines as to if a law that was made was good or bad, but also make it incredibly hard to distinguish between a law being created to prosecute or persecute (which would probably result in martial law).

 

If human beings were intrinsically honest, this would mean that we wouldn’t need law at all.

 

In short, there isn’t a straightforward answer to this question. Many ideas have been suggested in disagreement with honesty’s place in law, due to the self-interested, survivalist nature of humans, which determines that even if honesty did have a place in law, this honesty is easily undermined by the fact that humans are driven by self-preservation, which usually doesn’t coincide with being completely honest. But even so, it is undebatable that the level in which we regard honesty’s significance in law has a huge influence on our society.

 

Posted on

The Effect of Legalised Abortion on Crime

Wimbledon High History

Ava (Year 12), investigates how changes in the right to abortion impacted crime rates in the USA during the late 20th century.

Christmas Day, 1989. Crime is just about at its peak in the United States. Within the fifteen years preceding this day, violent crime has risen by over 80 per cent. All seemed set to continue like this, with crime following the same upward trajectory it had been on for many years. However, in the early 1990s, crime began to fall sharply and dramatically in a totally unexpected way; criminologists, police officials, politicians and economists all failed to predict this sudden fall and could offer no clear explanation for why it had occurred.

Many theories were thrown around, from innovative policing strategies, to a stronger economy, yet none seemed to offer an expansive or conclusive argument. That is, until Donohue and Levitt hypothesised that this fall in crime rates could all be traced back to a winter day in 1973… the day when legalised abortion was suddenly extended to the entirety of the United States.

The US has always had a fraught and complicated history regarding abortion. In the embryonic days of the nation, abortion was permissible until the first movements of the foetus could be felt; in 1828, New York became the first state to restrict abortion, and by 1900 it had been made illegal throughout the country. Through the 60s, several states began to allow abortion under extreme circumstances, such as rape, and by the 70s, five states had made abortion entirely legal and broadly available.

It was not until the 22nd of January 1973 that legalised abortion suddenly rippled through the rest of the country, due to the US’s Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. This pivotal moment in American legal history in which Justice Blackmun concluded that “the detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice [abortion] is altogether apparent”, would go on to have a monumental impact on crime rates during the 1990s.

Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was expensive and inaccessible, reserved for the daughters of middle-to-upper class families; however, now any women could obtain an abortion, often for less than 100 dollars. The social impacts of this were ground-breaking. Now, a woman who was unmarried, in her teens, or poor (sometimes all three) would be able to take advantage of Roe. V Wade. Women with these socio-economic backgrounds are likely to bring up children who are 50% more likely to live in child poverty, and 60% more likely to grow up with one parent. These two factors combined (childhood poverty and a single-parent household) are among the strongest predictors that a child will have a criminal future. That is not to say that they always predicate criminal behaviour, but rather that within certain circumstances provide very strong indicators for a child who will eventually contribute to rising crime rates.

In the first year after Roe. V Wade, there was one abortion for every 4 live births within the United States, and by 1980, one for every 2.25 births. Herein lies the reason which legalising abortion had a larger effect on lowering crime rates than any other single measure. The women in the United States who were most likely to raise a child who would in the future contribute to crime were now the women most likely to take advantage of new legal measures allowing them the choice to abort.

In the 1990s, just as children born around the time of Roe. V Wade would have been hitting teenage years – the years in which young men are most likely to commit crime – the rate of crime began to fall.

This theory – known as the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis – has provoked strong reactions from many. Firstly, among the politicians who entered heated debates claiming that their new policing strategies were the reason for the crime slump; secondly, among the public, many of whom simply did not believe it. If you are still in need of some convincing, take a look at similar situations in Canada, Australia and Romania, all countries who legalised abortion in some way and saw a drastic fall in crime rates in subsequent years. Better yet, the five states in the US which legalised abortion five years before Roe. V Wade, saw a decrease in crime… five years before the rest.

Steve Sailer and John Lott are two critics who have been vociferous in their rejection of the model. They claim that Donohue and Levitt ignore the indisputable fact that the homicide rate of young males (especially young Black males) temporarily skyrocketed in the late 1980s, young men who were born right around the time of the legalisation of abortion. However, Levitt provides a lengthy retort to this on his blog, which can be found here, if you are so inclined. In it, he comments on the importance of crack cocaine to understanding the fuller picture.

Therefore, whilst it is more comforting to believe that effective governance has had the biggest impact on falling crime rates within the past thirty years, in reality, the granting choice to women in America in fact is the largest reason for the fall in crime rates during the 1990s.

Inspired by “Where Did All the Criminals Go? (Chapter 4), Freakonomics” – Levitt, Donohue

@Freakonomics

Twitter: @DH_Pastoral