Hilzoy unveils a legislative agenda to punish pro-lifers for one man’s murder of George Tiller.
I have a few questions if this is going to be the basis for future policymaking:
-
Is there a carrot that goes with the stick? Studies have shown that positive reinforcement of good behavior is much more effective than negative consequences for poor behavior. This was the first significant example of pro-life violence in a number of years; I don’t recall anyone proposing that the pro-life movement should have been rewarded with policy concessions. Will these punitive policies sunset if there is no violence from anti-abortion groups for a certain period of time?
-
There are extreme and moderate parts of every movement. The punitive policies would effect both groups, as well as those on whose behalf they advocate. Is this really fair?
-
How far are you willing to go? I suspect Hillzoy would favor this set of policies even in the absence of pro-life violence. But what if there’s another act of violence? Would we impose punitive policies, even if the consensus was that, other than the punitive effect, they do not serve the common good? For example, if an environmental group committed some act of violence, would we cut off our nose to spite our face and pass pollution-friendly policies that might hasten ecological doom in order to demonstrate that terrorism does not work? Should we launch a war in response to the killings at an army recruiting station?
-
There are some “winners” from these punitive policies. Would this not create an incentive for them to “stage” acts of terrorism in order to trigger the punitive policies?
-
Is there a historical precedent for such punitive policies being effective in making groups less violent?
