TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

Is it right to break the law in order to enforce that same law?

Imagine the following: You drive on a lonely road but you are in a hurry, so you speed up a little bit beyond the limit, suddenly a police car appears on the rear mirror, if you don't want trouble you just pull over and wait for the cop to fine you, but what if for whatever reason you don't realize and keep at the same speed?... if you are 5 MPH above the limit, the police ought to speed up at least 15 MPH above your speed in order to get you soon enough... So they are clearly breaking the law in a bigger order of magnitude!!! It is clear that in some circumstances the police breaks the law in order to enforce it.

This is just the most obvious example, but I'm sure you can think of many others.

Is this kind of acts correct? Why? What are the moral and legal bases? Are the options of the police limited in some cases? or there's always a way to enforce the law without having to break it?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 10 2013: We give our soldiers the lee way to mortally harm other human beings. That is very much against the law.

    In some states it is law that you stop and assist another citizen that is in harms way even though practicing medicine without a license is against the law.

    In some states it is required to assist an officer of the law in the execution of their duties, even if it is against the law to act as an officer of the law.

    I think it has more to do with common social sense than any real moral or legal basis. Laws are not guidelines.
    • Jun 10 2013: Good point!!! common sense, I overlooked that. However that implies that is the duty of the law enforcement officers to apply common sense, so how free or constrained should they be in order to do their job effectively?
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2013: Actually it is the duty of the common citizen to apply more common sense. By doing so you take the police officer out of the equation. If no one is breaking the law, there is no need for the police officer.

        If a police officer is on his/her way to help your wife or daughter who has called the police because there is someone in the home how fast would you limit their speed to get to your home and save your family?

        I am assuming that you can't get there in time, have no means of communicating with your family, and they have no weapons to defend themselves with.

        The police officer is limited by traffic, weather, number of available officers, etc.

        Pay the ticket and forget about it. :)

        We all get tickets.
        • Jun 11 2013: Yes, I agree, it is the duty of the common citizen to apply common sense, and I trust must of us do, sometimes the common citizen makes stupid mistakes and have to meet face to face with the police, however I (wish to) believe when that happens we're talking about a minor offences, however the main reason for the police to exist is not the common citizen, but those who intentionally break the law.

          In the case you expose, the police officer is not speeding in order to enforce the speed limit, he/she is speeding to do a different duty. I think it is perfectly valid for the police officers to break the speed limit to do (almost) any of their duties, but my question is if it is right for them to do it when they are trying to enforce the speed limit. My question is not about the police/military breaking one law to enforce other (different and not related), I can find lots of valid reasons for that, however when they break one law to enforce that very same law I'm not sure it is a valid way of acting. Another example would be: An undercover operation in which an undercover police officer is selling drugs in order to prevent drug traffic. Do you get my point?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.