Why do rules fail and why can't laws control everyone? - Huxiu#
Omnivore#
Highlights#
Excessive punishment may lead to more malicious behavior ⤴️ ^09c9be65
Investing in law enforcement is more effective in deterring crime than investing in prisons ⤴️ ^0eb9d5e5
Rule makers need to balance the cost-benefit and intrinsic motivation of those being regulated ⤴️ ^3e0744ca
"Following our intuition for punishment, the public has been calling for stricter security measures, longer prison sentences, and even the construction of new prisons to incarcerate these criminals. The police have repeatedly used these measures, but they have not prevented the rise in murder rates.... Under our own fear and the instigation of politicians, our intuition tells us that combating bad behavior is simple: just be tough and make it public.... We can find them in the major ancient traditions around the world, from the classical thinkers of Greece to the legalists of ancient China, as well as the scriptures of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. What we find everywhere is the same idea: the wicked do not shed tears until they see the coffin, punishment is a good way to inflict pain and correct bad behavior, and if punishment is carried out in public, it can also have a deterrent effect. However, this traditional thinking is not supported by current empirical science. There is no conclusive evidence that severe sentences alone can have a deterrent effect." ⤴️ ^8a2f5199
What about Singapore? Is it a special case?
If companies prioritize methods such as clocking in and use fines or even demotions to prevent employees from slacking off and making mistakes, it may also cause employees to give up. Especially for those companies that often talk about long-term visions, treat employees as workhorses, blame employees when something goes wrong, and act swiftly in everything except when it comes to paying, the stricter the management, the greater the centrifugal force. ⤴️ ^4602cbe6
Intrinsic motivation usually already enables most people to behave properly. By adding rewards, people's intrinsic motivation to follow the rules may be displaced by external incentives, and even the "overjustification effect" may occur, where some people were already determined to engage in certain behaviors, and rewards only complicate matters... ⤴️ ^e3693501
This can be linked to the incentive method, where intrinsic motivation is greater than extrinsic motivation.
Why do rules fail and why can't laws control everyone?#
This article analyzes the problem of rule failure and explores the reasons why rules fail and why laws cannot control everyone. By citing examples and data, the author points out that excessive punishment may actually lead to more malicious behavior, and proposes the view that investing in law enforcement is more effective in deterring crime than investing in prisons. In addition, the article discusses the concepts of moral disengagement and behavioral codes, as well as the need for rule makers to balance the cost-benefit and intrinsic motivation of those being regulated.
• 👥 ==Excessive punishment may lead to more malicious behavior==
• 💼 ==Investing in law enforcement is more effective in deterring crime==
• 🔄 ==Rule makers need to balance the cost-benefit and intrinsic motivation of those being regulated==
In recent years, there has been a saying that "when a company starts emphasizing clocking in, it means it is going downhill." Of course, this cannot be generalized and generally applies to industries that emphasize creativity, such as technology companies and media.
However, whether a company starts emphasizing clocking in because it is going downhill, or whether emphasizing clocking in leads to going downhill, is a "chicken or egg" question, and different companies present different aspects. However, one thing can be confirmed: when the management of a company uses methods such as clocking in and fines or even demotions to boost company efficiency, the results are often not as expected.
If we look further, we will find that warning and punishment measures, although they conform to the intuition of managers and are considered management measures in many fields, often fail or even backfire in various management regulations, whether in enterprises or public spaces.
The book "Why do rules fail: the behavioral codes that laws cannot control" analyzes the problem of rule failure, hoping to make rule makers see their blind spots, and the passive recipients of rules can also adapt to scientific laws more in line with their interests and avoid harm. It attempts to answer a series of questions: why can seat belt regulations be well enforced, while speed limit regulations are often violated? Why does the number of garbage increase instead of decrease after "no littering" signs are put up? Compared to the regulations themselves, the position of the signature can have a greater impact on the integrity of the form filler? Why are safety manuals, compliance clauses, and internal reporting mechanisms in organizations often ineffective? Can severe punishment actually encourage crime?... How can we avoid wishful thinking or even going against our wishes?
The book states:
"A fact that no one wants to face is that decades of scientific research have not found that severe punishment can prevent wrong behavior, violations, or violent crimes. In most cases, the threat of severe punishment alone is not enough. We have not seen conclusive evidence that long-term imprisonment can prevent recidivism, or even that severe sentences can deter others from committing crimes, whether it is the three-strike law, the death penalty, or more severe sanctions against companies."
The so-called three-strike law is a law passed by California, USA in 1994, which means "three strikes and you're out" in baseball terminology. The main purpose is to impose heavier penalties on repeat offenders, but it has not reduced the number of people committing multiple crimes.
The author continues:
"Following our intuition for punishment, the public has been calling for stricter security measures, longer prison sentences, and even the construction of new prisons to incarcerate these criminals. The police have repeatedly used these measures, but they have not prevented the rise in murder rates.... Under our own fear and the instigation of politicians, our intuition tells us that combating bad behavior is simple: just be tough and make it public.... We can find them in the major ancient traditions around the world, from the classical thinkers of Greece to the legalists of ancient China, as well as the scriptures of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. What we find everywhere is the same idea: the wicked do not shed tears until they see the coffin, punishment is a good way to inflict pain and correct bad behavior, and if punishment is carried out in public, it can also have a deterrent effect. However, this traditional thinking is not supported by current empirical science. There is no conclusive evidence that severe sentences alone can have a deterrent effect."
In history, for a law to be followed by everyone and even become a habit, it often requires an extremely long process. Taking seat belts in cars as an example, as early as 1968, US law required all vehicles to be equipped with seat belts, but by the 1980s, only 10% of Americans were accustomed to using seat belts. In 1984, New York State took the lead in legislation requiring drivers to use seat belts, and other states subsequently implemented related laws, which significantly increased the seat belt usage rate in the United States to 50%. Clearly, the law changed people's driving habits.
But the problem is, what about the other 50%? The approach in the United States is to carry out various law enforcement activities, such as fines that people are most familiar with, and to disseminate public service advertisements through various channels to raise awareness of the dangers of not wearing seat belts. Car manufacturers also develop seat belt reminder devices in vehicles, which took many years to make seat belts a natural habit.
In other words, even relying on the establishment of laws alone is clearly not enough. It also requires the implementation of various punishment mechanisms, but even with punishment, it is still not enough. It also requires various forms of publicity. Even for something as common as seat belts, it requires multiple approaches to move from the legal level to becoming a social convention.
In modern society, individuals are subject to more and more rules as they grow up. Laws and regulations at the national level, various rules and regulations in schools and workplaces, are all forms of rule constraints, even the general rules of social etiquette are "hidden rules".
The existence of rules is easy to understand. As Kant said, humans are born with animality and naturally have a side that resists rule constraints. However, if a society has no rules, and everyone acts recklessly, it will inevitably lead to social chaos. There are also differences in the size of rules, with laws being the bottom line that must be enforced and complied with, and there are also rules that fall under the category of moral constraints, such as not making loud noises in public places.
But is it really better to have more rules? Especially for laws, does stricter mean more effective in reducing crime? The book "Why do rules fail" provides various historical and data evidence, telling people that the answer may be just the opposite. Sometimes, excessive punishment can make criminals take more risks and engage in more malicious behavior. In terms of economic costs, the heavier the sentence, the higher the management costs of institutions such as prisons. If these funds are used to strengthen law enforcement instead, it can prevent problems before they occur. In other words, investing in law enforcement is more effective in deterring crime than investing in prisons.
Sometimes, excessive punishment can also create social problems. The book gives an example, stating that if law enforcement is used improperly, in the wrong context, and without sufficient continuous input and supervision from community members, the results can be terrifying:
"A typical example is the 'stop-and-frisk' law enforcement in New York City. From 2003 to 2008, stop-and-frisk searches in New York City increased fivefold and reached its peak in 2011, with the police stopping over 685,000 people in New York. The idea at the time was that these large-scale police interventions would help better detect and remove drugs and firearms from the streets. However, the stop-and-frisk policy disproportionately affected the poor and minority communities. Especially in New York, the enforcement of these policies had strong racial bias. The likelihood of being stopped for Latinos was three times that of whites. In 2016, 82% of those stopped were black or Latino... What's worse is that this policy may undermine the public's trust in law enforcement and even the legitimacy of the entire legal system, which not only does not reduce crime, but may breed more crime."
The same applies to social institutions and companies. Holding medical personnel accountable for medical accidents is an indispensable part of the medical system, but if the accountability is too strict or even harsh, it can lead to doctors avoiding high-risk surgeries, making it impossible for patients to receive treatment, or requiring patients to undergo unnecessary tests before surgery. ==If companies prioritize methods such as clocking in and use fines or even demotions to prevent employees from slacking off and making mistakes, it may also cause employees to give up. Especially for those companies that often talk about long-term visions, treat employees as workhorses, blame employees when something goes wrong, and act swiftly in everything except when it comes to paying, the stricter the management, the greater the centrifugal force.==
The value of the book "Why do rules fail" is that it not only looks at the problem from the perspective of rule makers but also from the perspective of those being regulated by the rules.
Why can't people who are bound by rules resist doing bad things? The author cites the view of Albert Bandura, an American psychologist, on "moral disengagement," which states that "through moral disengagement, people can suppress their shame and guilt when doing bad things. For example, people can morally defend their unethical and inhumane behavior: terrorists resort to religion, gang members resort to the honor of the organization. People can compare their own wrong behavior with the more heinous behavior of others: people who speed on highways may think that hit-and-run drivers are the truly unethical drivers. People can also deny the harmful consequences of their own actions: illegally distributing TV shows does not really harm anyone, anyway, those companies and actors are making a lot of money.
Therefore, Bandura believes that instead of focusing on value-based judgments, it is better to focus on the cognitive processes that enable these judgments to be formed. The more a person uses these mechanisms, the more they can disengage from threats related to self-approval, allowing themselves to commit crimes without any concerns.
The book refers to the factors that affect the success or failure of rules as behavioral codes, which are influenced by two categories of mechanisms: motivation and context. The reason why rules fail is either because they fail to stimulate people's motivation to follow the rules, or they fail to create a context in which people can follow the rules. For example, if a society has a privileged class, it will undermine the rules, weaken people's sense of responsibility, and make many people accustomed to taking advantage of loopholes and not following the law. Rule makers also need to consider the cost-benefit of those being regulated and whether there will be reasonable rewards for complying with the rules. If the cost outweighs the benefit, people tend to not follow the rules. The so-called "good systems make people better" is precisely this principle.
Of course, if it goes too far and only relies on incentives, it can also undermine people's intrinsic motivation. As the book says: "==Intrinsic motivation usually already enables most people to behave properly. By adding rewards, people's intrinsic motivation to follow the rules may be displaced by external incentives, and even the 'overjustification effect' may occur, where some people were already determined to engage in certain behaviors, and rewards only complicate matters...=="
Between punishment and incentives, rule makers face different problems in different contexts and have to make different choices, and this choice is something that humans can only continue to make.
Title: "Why do rules fail: the behavioral codes that laws cannot control"
Authors: Benjamin van Rooij (Netherlands), Adam Fine (USA)
Publisher: Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore
Producer: Ideal Country
Translator: Gao Hongyuan
Publication Date: October 2023
This content represents the author's independent views and does not represent the position of Huxiu. Reproduction without permission is prohibited. For authorization, please contact hezuo@huxiu.com
If you have any objections or complaints about this article, please contact tougao@huxiu.com
People who are changing and want to change the world are all on the Huxiu APP