Unintended Consequences

The best argument a libertarian can ever make for abolishing the institutions that inflict policies on the citizenry at the local, state and federal level is this: policy makers are routinely surprised by the unforeseen consequences of their bright ideas, and if they don’t know for sure what the result of their policy decisions will be, then they should just lay off.

I can’t really refute that argument. History is replete with examples of such unforeseen outcomes to seemingly straight-forward policy interventions. The New Deal. Relief, Recovery and Reform. Create jobs and change US economic policies to help and protect folks. It’s a slam dunk, right? Wrong.

There are certainly many who are quite fond of the programs that came out of that deal (Social Security, Public Works Programs, Fair Labor Standards Act, etc.). But depending on whom you choose to believe, the New Deal may very well have also deepened the very depression it was trying to resolve and postponed the recovery it was designed to bring about.

Ideas about policy changes are thrown around with abandon, with few experts willing to acknowledge the possibility that the effects of their proposed policies might not be limited to the ones they’ve enumerated.

Some examples. Mandatory life in prison without parole for thrice-convicted drug dealers or child molesters. Outstanding, one might think. Who could argue against such a thing? We all want to protect the kids, right? Lock up the bad guys forever.

But maybe it’s not so clear cut. Maybe. . . just maybe. . . if a third conviction for selling drugs or molesting a child brings with it a mandatory life sentence, the following might be the result:

• A sister who sees her brother molesting their little cousin might decide not to report the crime because, while she wants to stop the abuse, she can’t bring herself to be the one responsible for putting her brother away for life.

• A district attorney might be reluctant to indict a twice-convicted individual on new drug charges if the individual is found in possession of a relatively small amount of contraband; the DA might be unwilling to send a guy away for life for what seems to be a relatively minor offense.

• A jury might be more likely to become deadlocked on a seemingly clear-cut molestation or drug possession case not because the defendant’s guilt is in question, but because some jury members might be unwilling to put a man away forever for molestation or drug possession.

And perhaps the most frightening unintended consequence of mandatory life sentences for child molesters (or anyone but murderers).

• A child molester sits back and considers what he has done, trying to decide how or even if he should release his victim. If he knows that what he has just done will guarantee him life in prison without parole if he’s caught, and if he knows that the punishment would be the same even if he’s convicted of murder. . . he may decide it best not to leave any witnesses alive at all.

So mandatory sentencing might just result in fewer crimes being reported, fewer indictments, fewer convictions and (God forbid) the murder of some victims that might otherwise have been left alive.

As for mandatory sentencing. . . we have to maintain a reasonable sentencing continuum ranging from traffic tickets to life in prison without parole or capital punishment (depending on your preference). Taking a life must bring with it the maximum penalty, and lesser crimes, no matter how heinous, must bring with them lesser punishments. To break this continuum means. . . well I'm not sure what it means.

And as for unintended consequences. . . they’re here to stay. Policy makers must tread carefully and drop their unjustified certainty in the outcome of their proposed policies.