To what extent should those enforcing the law listen to their own consciences?

Everyone - I hope - agrees that those making laws should listen to their consciences, and make the law as ethical as possible.

When the two conflict, to what extend do you think those enforcing the law - police, judges, etc - should do what they themselves think is right, and to what extent should they do what those who made the laws thought was right and set down in law as such?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

"...The theory states that monitoring and maintaining urban environments in a well-ordered condition may prevent further vandalism as well as an escalation into more serious crime."
---

This theory suggests that to maintain order, strict enforcement of all laws is necessary. Of course as a "bleeding heart liberal" like myself, I do believe that in order to be shown mercy, you must show mercy.

My view is that mostly the place for mercy is in *making* laws - that they should take note of mitigating factors and excuses, and allow some room for judges to use their discretion to show mercy - but that those *enforcing* the laws should seldom, if ever, show more mercy than the law permits them to.

Either in the name of compassion or pure partisan/cronyship.

And the police have their own methods which can be used or abused for the same reasons.


And as with the "Free Speech" dilema, so too do we have a similar enforcement dilema with extralegal powers inherent in those positions. If we allow enforcers to indulge in social altruism based on personal feelings, we open the door to "altruism" towards corporate entities and organisations. And we also allow enforcers the option of exercising their "discression" in the other direction.

And in fact that's exactly what we get today. A system that disproportionately punishes blacks over other minorities and those minorities over whites at any given income level. And also disproportionately punishes the poor over the rich.

Our greatest success was when Western societies made the punishment of the privileged more equal to that of (at least a subset of) the poorer people and more equally likely. This is far more likely to ensure that the influential members of push for a fairer system.

How many people are aware of the root of the word "privilege" I wonder?

PRIVATE LAW

Law not for the common man.

That is what you get when you allow enforcement agencies the privelege of their own discression beyond very limited and carefully defined parameters. Discression is for the law itself. If people find exception with the law, they can petition to have it changed, or through civil disobedience render it unenforcable, suffering any attendant consequences in the meantime.