Question

Conflicts Government, including the criminal justice system, is supposed to be answerable to the people. However, there are times when the "law" and the "will of the people" may conflict. This may be due to evolving social preferences that lawmakers have not yet caught up to, or it might also be due to different communities having different standards. Resolving the conflict between "doing what the law requires" and "serving the will of the people" is often not a black-and-white decision. This week's discussion will examine this conflict from several angles Should the police have the ability to selectively enforce only those laws that the public wants to have enforced? In other words, should the police ignore offenses when the law in question is not a popular one? Should the police or prosecutor have the power to decide against charging a particular offender if it is clear that the local population does not want that person to be prosecuted? Provide a real or imaginary example that would illustrate this dilemma and justify your choice. Should the police enforce laws differently from one community to the next, if those communities express differing standards? If you agree that the community should have influence or even oversight over the local police, how can this be achieved? Using South University Online Library or the Internet, research about police agencies that utilize a community policing strategy These dilemmas can affect all levels of law enforcement, but sheriffs in particular have to wrestle with it. Analyze why sheriffs should be more concerned with the "will of the people" when that will seems to be in conflict with the letter of the law.

Answer 1

When letter of law and will of the people seem to be in conflict, the authorities need to take into consideration various facets and angles into consideration. It cannot be implemented just because it is laid down as a law.

There have been many examples around the world, where law which was supposed to be put down in black and white was overturned or discarded because of the will of the people

One of the very recent examples is that of Hongkong. Millions of people have taken to streets against the anti extradition bill. The new extradition law would allow the suspects to be sent to China for trial. Most of the residents were of the opinion that this bill would take away people's right to protest and therefore they thought it will in a way create hindrance in their freedom. So millions of people took to streets to non violently protest against the law. The government had to budge and take cognizance of the will of the people and the law was scrapped. Since the handing over of Hongkong to Mainland China by the British in 1997, people of Hong Kong have at various times in 2003,2012,2014 taken to protests against the government where they thought their right to democracy (though partial ) was under threat.

Few days back, Guthi law in Nepal was similarly scrapped after massive protest of the people. The law was to bring all the temple trusts in Nepal under the control of the communist government in power. People were concerned that the politicians and public officials would embezzle temple funds and take over temple lands. In order to not let this happen and maintain the sanctity of the temples, people protested in large numbers against the legislation which was unanimously passed by the parliament of the country. But the government had to agree to the will of the people and scrap the law.

In the US as well, in states like Louisiana and many other, where abortion is banned after detection of hearbeat, has faced many protests from women. They are of the opinion that men cannot have the right to decide the fate of a woman. Even though the law has been passed and not scrapped.

So under what circumstances the authorities are more concerned about the will of the people than the letter of the law is very subjective and should be seen in the light of each case and surrounding factors and circumstances in each case.