Britain Discovers An Exciting New Alternative To "The Rule Of Law"

One of the great achievements of civilization is the concept known as “The Rule of Law.” This is a system whereby people who commit crimes are arrested by trained authorities, tried in courts, and punished according to established legal procedures.

This system is not perfect. For example, it sometimes involves paperwork. Generally, it is considered preferable to the alternative system, known as “angry random people hanging other people.”

Historically, “angry random people hanging other people” has produced mixed results. (If by “mixed” you mean “terrible.”)

Unfortunately, Britain appears to be conducting a large-scale experiment to determine whether this historical pattern still holds. The problem began years ago when authorities became increasingly nervous about certain categories of crime involving certain categories of criminals, and certain categories of victims. Rather than simply applying the law and allowing the chips to fall where they may, officials appeared more concerned with avoiding accusations of prejudice, bias, insensitivity, or whatever the current approved term was.

This created a situation that every competent parent recognizes instantly. Imagine that your children discover that one child can break household rules without consequences. Maybe this isn’t actually true. Maybe it’s only partly true. Maybe it’s a misunderstanding. It doesn’t matter. The moment the other children believe it is true, your house ceases to be a family and becomes Southern Lebanon. The social contract works exactly the same way.

Citizens agree not to dispense justice themselves because they believe the state will do it instead. Slowly, perhaps. Imperfectly, certainly. But eventually, (mostly) competently, and most important, FAIRLY. The state gets a monopoly on meting out justice, and citizens get a reasonable expectation that crimes will be punished regardless of who commits them. This arrangement has many advantages, including a dramatic reduction in incidents involving pitchforks and ropes on lampposts.

The arrangement also depends on trust.

If people begin to suspect that the authorities are less interested in stopping crime than in managing headlines, balancing demographic sensitivities, or avoiding awkward conversations on social media, that trust starts to evaporate. Once that happens, the crazies emerge. It is important to understand that the crazies are never a solution. The crazies are what happens when people stop believing proper solutions exist.

A functioning justice system is boring. Cases move through courts. Evidence is examined. Sentences are imposed. Nobody sets anything on fire. Television ratings suffer.

A failing justice system is exciting. Suddenly every lunatic with access to a kitchen knife, a gasoline can, or an internet connection decides he has been called upon by history. History, for its part, never remembers sending the invitation.

This is why governments must be fanatical about equal justice. Not because equal justice is morally satisfying, although it is. Not because equal justice looks good in official reports, although it does. They must be fanatical about it because unequal justice (or even the perception of unequal justice) destroys the legitimacy on which every civilized society depends.

You see, people will tolerate a great deal.

They will tolerate bureaucratic incompetence.
They will tolerate delays.
They will tolerate taxes that appear to have been calculated by drunken mathematicians.
What they will not tolerate is the belief that the rules apply differently depending on who you are. When that belief takes hold, citizens stop seeing the law as a referee and start seeing it as a barrier. Once that happens, more and more people decide to become participants.

This never ends well.

The lesson is not that mob-driven enforces are right. They are wrong. The lesson is not that mobs are justified. They are not. The lesson is that civilized societies cannot afford to create conditions under which mobs begin to look (to frightened and angry people) like the only institution still willing to act. The answer to lawlessness is not more lawlessness. The answer is authorities who enforce the law consistently enough that nobody else feels compelled to volunteer for the Department of Amateur Justice and Recreational Property Damage.