do you think cops who arrest people for marijuana should be punished?

Answer 1

Police can not rely on the excuse that "the law is the law." When choosing whether or not to enforce a law, they are making a moral decision, and even if they cannot be held legally accountable, they are morally accountable. If they choose to enforce an immoral or unjust law, the excuse that it "was their job" does not cut it. To use a couple extreme examples, American police that returned runaway slaves to their owners during the days of slavery and German police that helped to round up Jews for concentration camps both made moral decisions. Whether or not it was the law was irrelevant.

The officers (if they made the choice to join the police force) took a moral responsibility upon themselves. Even if the law is explicit about an issue, the police officer, as a human being, must exercise his moral discretion. If he enforces an unjust law, he is wrong to do so. Of course the law doesn't police itself. What's legal cannot be punished legally. And so there is not any realistic hope of punishing officers for upholding immoral laws. But that doesn't change the wrongness of their behavior or their moral responsibility.

The big question is whether there are instances of unjust laws today which are enforced by police. And if so, whether these unjust laws result in severe penalties for violators or not. If there is an unjust law on the books, but only a minimal or nonexistent penalty, the moral responsibility of the police for enforcing that law is also minimal. If, however, the penalty is much more serious, e.g. death (as in the third Reich for Jews) or long-term imprisonment (as in the south for slaves), the moral responsibility of the officer is also much greater.

So are there unjust laws today which result in serious penalties for violators? I would say that many drug laws fall in to this category. A person who possesses illegal drugs can face long prison sentences, even though they have never harmed anyone. Even if drugs pose a threat to society as a whole, we commonly hold that an individual should be punished based on what he has done or seems about to do, not what the acts he commits might cause if someone else were to commit them. For example, protesting can harm society; it can undermine social order. But protesters are only punished when they do something that actually causes or seems about to cause such harm. An individual protester cannot be punished because he or she is a protester and protests can cause social damage, they can only be punished based on their individual actions. If they incite a riot or vandalize something, for example. Drug laws are commonly justified on the grounds of social protection, but that is identical to outlawing any other action which might cause "social harm." We would not stand for protests, alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, etc to be outlawed because they cause or might cause social damage, we would insist that if a person is to be punished for engaging in any of these activities, it must be because he or she has actually done some harm or is reasonably about to do some harm to society. In other words, if damage to society is what is being punished by these laws, then it should follow that an individual can only be punished if he or she is actually damaging or about to damage society. if they are just sitting in their home taking drugs and not damaging society, the social protection justification does not work. in essence they are being punished not for what they do, but for what people who do what they are doing might do.

Additionally, the person arrested for drugs has had no (or only minimal) say in the law. Whether a law is passed down from lawmakers in DC or from a monarch, it is equally authoritarian if the people have no say, or so little say as to be effectively none. If drug laws were decided by local communities in which the people who were affected by them had some say, then they would be just. If they are decided at the state or national level there is effectively no means for the individual to have a say in the decision. Whether a person must live according to laws decided by an alien majority or laws decided by a tyrant, they are being governed by laws about which they have had no say. Certainly some laws that you have no say over might be justified, like those that obviously harm others (rape, murder, etc). They are justified because of the inherent immorality of those crimes. However victimless crimes, those "crimes" that are outlawed because of their potential for social damage, should be allowed to be decided upon by the community. If drug use is illegal because it might pose a threat to the community, then shouldn't it be the community who decides that? And in the community the individual actually has some say over the law.

A law can only be justified if it is passed to prevent inherently immoral crimes (e.g. murder) or if it is passed with those affected by it having a say about it getting passed. Most current drug laws fail both those tests. Many current drug laws can also result in lengthy prison sentences. I would say that therefore police officers who enforce an unjust drug law that results in a serious punishment have a serious moral responsibility. Morally they would deserve to be punished. Practically, unless you want to resort to vigilante action, they will not be.

I hope you read all this! I just spent a good chunk of time writing it.

P.S.: almost every response on here said that "cops should not be punished for enforcing the law." If you go in to law enforcement voluntarily, you are taking upon yourself the moral responsiblity of the law. If the law is unjust and you have voluntarily enforced it, you have made a moral decision. If police did not go in to law enforcement voluntarily, maybe they could not be held accountable for enforcing the law. But this is not the case.

Answer 2

Please, people...

Don't think that cops need to be frikkin' punished for ENFORCING the laws that are on the books!!!

I would ask the same question this way - should cops be punished for arresting people who murder? Of course not!

Breaking the law is breaking the law....if you think cops shouldn't arrest someone for breaking one of those laws, then get your elected representatives to change the law!

In the meantime, stop being a cop hater and don't break the law.

Answer 3

That's ridiculous. You know...I'm the wife of a cop, and I'm not totally against the legalization of marijuana, but don't blame the cops for doing their job. I don't judge people badly who smoke it any more than I judge people badly who drink alcohol, but you also need to understand that it is at this time against the law, and if you make the decision to have it anyway, then you need to accept that there's a risk of getting caught and arrested. Fight for the legalization of it if you believe in that.

Answer 4

Gee, the way you put that, the police shouldn't be punished for doing their jobs. If the state laws were changed, the police might stop enforcing it.
So, write your State congressman/woman and speak to them.

Answer 5

No, the police shouldn't be punished for enforcing the law. I bet you're high on it right now. This is a stupid question...

Answer 6

Why would you punish the police for enforcing the law? If you disagree with the laws in your state you should contact your representatives, the police only enforce the laws they enact.

Answer 7

Police should not be punished for enforcing the law.

Answer 8

I think this question should involve some punishment. Unfortunately, marijuana is illegal, not stupidity.

Answer 9

Does anyone think joe should be punished for asking such a dumbass question? My vote is yes!

Answer 10

I dont know, do you think people who are ignorant enough to waste keystrokes writing this should be punished?