Fewer Rules, Better People: Lam on Law Enforcement

In Barry Lam’s book “Fewer Rules, Better People: The Case for Discretion,” he delves into the intricate balance between rules and discretion in law enforcement. Through real-world examples and interviews with police officers and district attorneys, Lam explores two forms of discretion in law enforcement: selective discretion and interpretive discretion.

Selective discretion refers to the ability to decide whether or not to enforce a law in a given case. One poignant example of selective discretion is illustrated in the case of a young teen named Joey in Oniontown, New York. Caught stealing bread, peanut butter, and milk because his family had no food at home, Joey was faced with potential legal consequences. However, the officers involved took a compassionate approach. Instead of arresting Joey, they worked out a deal with the store owner for Joey to work off his theft by cleaning and organizing the store. This act of selective discretion not only prevented Joey from being arrested but also provided him and his family with much-needed food.

Interpretive discretion, on the other hand, involves the ability to interpret how a law applies to a given case, especially when rules are vague or imprecise. Lam uses the example of speed limit laws to illustrate this point. While the speed limit is a clear and defined rule, the concept of driving at a safe speed for current road conditions is more subjective and open to interpretation.

Through these examples, Lam argues that the use of both selective and interpretive discretion is essential in the field of law enforcement. While rules provide structure and guidance, they cannot account for every possible scenario. It is through the exercise of discretion that law enforcement officials can navigate these gray areas and make decisions that serve the greater good.

Ultimately, Lam’s exploration of rules and discretion in law enforcement sheds light on the complexities of enforcing laws in a diverse and ever-changing society. By understanding the nuances of selective and interpretive discretion, law enforcement officials can approach their work with empathy, wisdom, and a commitment to justice.

When it comes to implementing laws and rules, decisions will always need to be made about how to interpret the scope and content of any given rule or law. This process is not as straightforward as simply following the letter of the law, as there is often room for interpretation and discretion.

If a police department decides to interpret a vague statute in a way that broadens the scope of what constitutes a crime, this decision is just as political as interpreting the statute in a way that narrows down what is considered a crime.

Striving for a strict adherence to legalism may seem like the ideal approach, but in reality, it is not always practical. This approach can also serve as a way to avoid scrutiny on how discretion is actually used, by framing it as simply following the law.

One common excuse used by law enforcement officers and prosecutors to justify controversial decisions is that they were just following the law. However, the reality is that when discretion is involved, there is always a choice of which laws to follow and which ones to ignore.

So, how should decisions be made when it comes to enforcing and applying laws? This is a complex question that requires careful consideration. In the next post, we will delve into Lam’s exploration of this topic and see how he approaches the decision-making process.