Law and Social Control

-- By KhurramDara - 15 Feb 2012

Civil Rights and Behavior

One theme we’ve discussed in our class thus far has been the view of the law as a form of social control. Eben has said that law is a weak form of social control. I want to discuss two examples in which law does not seem to have a strong affect on behavior, and discuss what functionality the law has.

Consider the civil rights movement, particularly for blacks in America. What role has the law played? There have been a total of eight federal civil rights laws that were passed dating as far back as 1866 and as recently as 1991. State governments have passed their own versions of these civil rights acts. And there have been several Supreme Court cases that upheld these laws and struck down other laws that sought to racially discriminate.

The second federal civil rights act in 1871, known as the Ku Klux Klan act, prohibited ethnic violence towards blacks. Since the acts passage there were over 3,000 blacks lynched. So several other civil rights acts were passed subsequent to 1871. And after those acts were passed, we saw voter disenfranchisement based on race, along with segregation in schools and other public places. So more laws were passed and more court cases decided. Despite this, in 1991 Rodney King was beat nearly to death at the hands of the Los Angeles police.

It seems that what protects racial violence and discrimination is not our laws, it’s our collective mindset, a societal belief that we should not treat people differently because of their race. The American youth started to interact, study, and socialize with one another. They didn’t need a law or class to tell them that black people were no less deserving of rights than white people. They had lived with them, experienced life with them, and knew that in many respects, they shared a lot in common.

First Amendment Protections and Behavior

In the ten years since 9/11 I’ve watched organization after organization in the American Muslim community look to laws and the legal system to control social attitudes about Muslims in America. Thanks to the change our societal mindset that took place during the civil rights movement, the harassment and bigotry faced by American Muslims is not even remotely as severe as what other groups throughout American history have faced. This softer bigotry has taken various forms. For example, when Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he was accused of being Muslim. He wasn’t accused of being linked to a radical or terrorist group, he accused simply of being Muslim, as if there were something inherently wrong with being a member of the Islamic faith. A mosque construction site in Tennessee was set ablaze last year. In August a Manhattan taxi driver was stabbed, allegedly because he was Muslim.

The premier Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations, has filed lawsuit upon lawsuit for every incidence of harassment or violence. They point to the law, not a statute or common law principle, but a fundamental right in the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion. As an American Muslim, I can see how law is not the most preferable form of social control. A far better approach for the Muslim community would be to mirror some of the factors that led to successful integration and reduced discrimination towards blacks in America. Building personal connections and social bonds with other Americans would probably be a stronger antidote to negative stereotypes. How likely is it for a man who has a positive working relationship with a Muslim, or even a friendship with one, to protest a Muslim’s ability to practice their faith freely? A societal change in mindset is need for actual change to take place.

Utility of the Law as a Form of Social Control

If law is not a powerful form of social control, than why do we spend so much time and energy drafting penal codes, writing legislation, and interpreting the Constitution? Wouldn’t we be better off using some other form social control? Is the reason we don’t murder children or use crystal meth because of laws the tell us not to? If not, then why have laws at all? Some would probably say that the reason we have laws is for the few people that do engage in activities like murder and drug use. Deterrence is often argued, yet many felons, for example, are repeat offenders. A report from the Bureau of Justice statistics found that 61% of felony defendants had at least one prior conviction.

While laws don’t appear to be a strong form of social control (in that it is unclear whether laws actually prevent crimes from being committed) it may have some utility. At least these individuals are locked away and prevented from committing crimes during the time they are imprisoned. Until a more clear form of social control that can be applied in place of the law, or as a supplement to the law presents itself, maybe this is as good as we can do.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KhurramDara
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.