Men are not hanged for stealing horses but that horses may not be stolen."
By Victor Davis Hanson
Law enforcement is not just a way to deal with individual violators it also reminds society at large that there can be no civilization without legality. What makes citizens obey the law is not always their sterling character. Instead fear of punishment the shame of arrest fines or imprisonment more often makes us comply with laws.
Worse still when one law is left unenforced then all sorts of other laws are weakened.
Or as 17th-century British statesman George Savile famously put it: Men are not hanged for stealing horses but that horses may not be stolen."
In the modern world we call such prompt uniform and guaranteed law enforcement deterrence" from the Latin verb meaning to frighten away."
The result of hundreds of Sanctuary Cities" is not just to forbid full immigration enforcement in particular jurisdictions. They also signal that U.S. immigration law and other laws by extension can be ignored.
The presence of an estimated 12 million or more foreign nationals unlawfully living in the United States without legal consequence sends a similar message. The logical result is the current caravan of thousands of Central Americans now inching its way northward to enter the United States illegally.
If the border was secure immigration laws enforced and illegal residence phased out deterrence would be re-established and there would likely be no caravan.
Campus protests often turn violent. Agitators shout down and sometimes try to physically intimidate speakers with whom they disagree.
Protesters assume that ignoring laws about peaceful assembly poses no consequences. Usually student disruptors are right. College administrators will typically shrug at even violent protests rather than call the police to make arrests.
Yet if a few bold disruptors were actually charged with misdemeanors or felonies and had arrests tarnishing their otherwise sterling resumes there would likely be far fewer illegal and violent protests.
In the last few years a number of celebrities have openly fantasized about doing physical harm to the president of the United States. Madonna Kathy Griffin Johnny Depp Robert De Niro Snoop Dogg and other stars have expressed their wishes that Donald Trump might be beaten up blown up cut up or shot up.
Their shared premise is that they are too famous influential or wealthy to expect consequences that ordinary citizens might face for making threats to the safety of the president of the United States.
If the next time a Hollywood icon tweeted or voiced a threat to the president he or she was subsequently put on a no-fly list the current assassination chic would quickly stop.
In America most every person assumes that they have the freedom to eat safely in a restaurant to walk to work without disturbance and to relax without fear of violence. Now that is not always the case at least not if one is deemed politically influential or conservative.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders Sens. Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell and others must now worry that when they venture out in public protesters will scream in their face attempt to bar their passage or disrupt their meal and do so without legal ramifications.
There are many causes of the current legal laxity.
Yes President Donald Trump is a polarizing president. And his critics have decided that extraordinary and sometimes extralegal measures are morally justified to stop him. Supposedly high-minded ends are seen as justifying unlawful means.
Helping undocumented immigrants evade the law stopping the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh or otherwise thwarting President Trump now all warrant special immunity.
The problem with ignoring laws is that it is contagious and can boomerang.
Sanctuary cities could in theory birth conservative sanctuary zones. Would todays protesters wish for other jurisdictions to nullify federal laws and court rulings concerning abortion gun registration and gay marriage?
If thousands of Hondurans in a caravan are deemed above the law then why not exempt future mass arrivals of Chinese or South African immigrants?
If Republican politicos cant eat in peace if students can block a right-wing speaker or storm a diner will Barack Obama Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi soon face the same disruptions the illegality justified by higher moral concerns?
