For a long time now, there has been an ongoing debate concerning rules and standards. The debate focuses on two sides, both representing different legal forms that are often used to promote the interest and general well-being of society. One side being in favor of using “rules” as law and the other being in favor of a “standards” approach. To put the sides in simple terms, “rules” in the context of this debate refer to “those legal criteria that differentiate legal from illegal behavior in a simple and clear way.” “Standards”, on the other hand, can be defined as “general legal criteria which are unclear and fuzzy and require complicated judiciary decision making.”
From the above definition alone, it might seem that “rules” would be the clear winner in the debate about which one is better for society. After all, they have the benefit of often being clear and concise, allowing a person to easily determine whether their conduct falls on the side of prohibited conduct or permissible conduct. Take for example, the average everyday driver. The driver can simply drive by a speed limit sign, determine whether they are driving at an appropriate speed, and take the steps necessary to either slow down to be in conformity with the law or maintain their speed at the permissible level. The interpretation takes little to no effort on the part of the person and the prohibited conduct is easily deterred.
A standard, on the other hand, would look something like a law that requires drivers to simply “drive safely” rather than having a predetermined speed limit. This type of law, unlike the easy-to-interpret “rule”, requires much more self-evaluation on the part of the person engaged in the conduct. Despite this requirement of having to exert much more effort to comply with standards, a compelling argument can me made that standards might actually be more effective in promoting the general well-being of society.
Take again for example, the driver who is subject to a fixed speed limit. Just because that driver is going under the speed limit, does not necessarily mean that they are going to be driving safely. In fact, a person driving five under the speed limit can be much more dangerous than a person going 15 over the speed limit. By requiring a person to remain in a constant state of awareness about their conduct, people are more incentivized to be safer drivers. Rather than simply looking at their speedometer to determine whether they fall on the side of permissible conduct, they must consciously ask themselves whether they are truly “driving safely.” Furthermore, there is an added layer of evaluation that must take place. Not only does the driver need to ask themselves whether they are driving safely, they must also ask whether a police officer will determine that they are driving safely. This added layer of evaluation provides further incentive for the person to not drive in a dangerous manner.
Obviously, that isn’t to say that every person subjected to the “drive safely” standard would automatically become a better driver or that people are automatically going to be more prone to follow the law. The point is that a “standard” simply may be better at addressing the actual goals of society as opposed to the an easy-to-understand rule. Where a rule provides a clearly defined boundary that people can be sure not to cross, a standard can be more in line with promoting the general well-being of society. Well-being which a rule can often only attempt to promote due to its rigidity and lack of flexibility.
Additionally, it should be noted that there are many other considerations that need to be taken into account to adequately answer this debate and the points made in this blog post only scratch the surface by using one example of common driving laws. Other considerations such as administrative costs and the ability of each type of legal form to be delegated and enforced must also be taken into consideration. The debate is likely to continue for a long time to come as people continue to weigh the pros and cons of each.
This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group Blog. If you are in need of legal help, the CIMA Law Group is a law firm in Phoenix, Arizona which possesses expertise in Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.
CIMA Law Group Blog 