|
Social Engineering: An Answer?
by Michelle Calderon, staff writer for AnaiRhoads.org
“We can have as much or as little crime as we please, depending on what we choose to count as criminal.”—Herbert L. Packer (1968).
Before there were laws, the world was uncivilized. Chaos, destruction, and conflict ruled the earth. Without laws, men would kill each other until extinction much like the days of the Dinosaurs. Laws exist to provide social order. Laws give security to all that is living. Laws have a purpose in society. As society became sophisticated, more complex laws were and are still being created to reflect the sign of the times. Today, some have stated that “laws are the result of active enterprise, and that laws reflect the philosophical, moral, and economic perspectives of their creators” (Schmalleger, 2002, p. 14).
In political science, social engineering is a term used by conservatives to those practices under authoritarian systems of government, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. “Social engineering refers to attempts by governments, or private groups to change or "engineer" the views and behavior of citizens through the use of advertising, through active support of culture, or though the legal system” (Wikipedia, 2005). Since laws can exert powerful control over human conduct, some have suggested that laws can be purposefully used as a tool to intentionally shape society. Basically, social engineering is the art and science of getting people to comply with ones’ wishes. Social engineering is not a way of mind control, it will not force people to perform tasks wildly outside of their normal behavior and it is far from foolproof. It also involves far more than simply quick thinking and a variety of amusing expressions. Social engineering can involve a great deal of groundwork, information gathering and communication before an attempt at gaining information is ever made. Most of the work is in the preparation, rather than the attempt itself.
During the beginning of Social Engineering, the term used was moral enterprise. The founding father, Howard Becker (1963,) used it to refer to the activities of moral crusaders (called moral entrepreneurs) who were responsible for creating new laws. “People must be made to feel that something ought to be done about it. Someone must call the public’s attention to these matters, supply the push necessary to get things done, and direct such energies as are aroused in the proper direction to get a rule created” (Schmalleger, 2002, p. 15).
Examples of contemporary moral enterprise can be seen in specific mandated laws initiated by activists such as the three-strikes legislation and “Megan’s Law” statute. Three-strikes legislation passed in California in 1994 requires criminal offenders to be sentenced to lengthy prison terms after their third felony conviction. Some states vary such as California’s law, which is retroactive (in that it counts offenses committed before the date the legislation was signed), requires 25 -year-to-life sentence for three-time felons with convictions for two or more serious or violent prior offenses. Criminal offenders facing a “second strike” can receive up to double the normal sentence for their most recent offense. Parole consideration is not available until at least 80 % of the sentence has been served. Three-strikes provisions continue to find much public support, and the federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 also contains a three-strikes provision, which mandates life imprisonment for federal criminals convicted of three violent felonies or drug offenses (Reynolds, 2005). Megan’s Law was created after a case involving child molestation of a young girl, Megan, by a sex-offender living in the neighborhood. The law calls for the rights of private citizens to be able to know if a known sex offender lives within the area. (DOJ, 2001).
Obviously, these types of laws were created not just to provide punishments and sentencing for certain criminal acts. The purpose of social engineering is to further supplement the deterrence of such acts. One such organization, Cat Fanciers' Association Legislative Group discussed the issue of approaching animal ordinances as a means for modifying an existing social engineering project. While it is animals they are concerned with rather than human beings, such a proposal if enacted would advance animal control in this country. The organization proposes that funding should be used for functions of animal control agencies. Presently, costly licenses and permits lead to more abandonment of pets, and less compliance as people resist what is simply an unfair pet tax on responsible owners.
Very few, if any at all, ordinances restrict pet owners. Funding animal control through taxation seems a realistic approach. Tax dollars should be spent on concentrating on basic services. Involvement with “non-profit volunteer organizations that receive their funding from donations and grants, is proving a more complete and reliable way to achieve positive, incentive based programs to reduce problems associated with animals, while fulfilling the basic mission of animal control” (a, 2005).
The problem that jurisdictions face now in the area of animal control is how to meet a public's increased expectations. Presently, local animal ordinances are being renewed due to increased pressure from animal protection organizations to pass laws that are purely "social engineering”. The challenge to this project is that most laws address actions such as murder, robbery, cruelty to animals, for example. Even laws that prohibit less serious "crimes" are clearly in the public interest: i.e., speed limits and laws that require dogs to be leashed when off their property promote public safety.
Based on claims that millions of animals are dying in shelters because of a "pet overpopulation crisis", several local ordinances have been enacted to address this issue: spaying and neutering of animals. However, education about responsible pet ownership and positive, incentive-based programs that target the root causes of the problem is the key to minimize this problem. These animal laws should impose standards of conduct on pet owners and provide serious consequences for the lack of responsibilities. “Some jurisdictions have passed ordinances mandating that all pets be neutered or spayed, either as a condition of owning a pet, licensing or of redeeming impounded pets. Some ordinances have an effect on responsible breeders of pedigreed cats who attempt to abide by law, but they fail to curb any problems created by irresponsible pet owners who allow indiscriminant matings” (a, 2005).
Statistics show that "pet overpopulation" is now largely under control. This may be due to those ordinances that require spay and neutering. “Currently, 87% of all owned cats and 69% of owned dogs are already neutered or spayed” (a, 2005). However, only by focusing on the real causes of homeless animals can a solution be reached. The National Council on Pet Population and Policy are providing targeted demographic studies to accomplish that goal.
Ordinances that are written for the purpose of social engineering are not only imposing undue hardship on already overburdened animal control agencies but are backfiring in predictable ways. It needs to be modified to shift the burden upon the pet owners. Animal Control should concern itself with the basics. It should be adequately funded by tax to meet its obligations of protecting its citizens from nuisance and dangers associated with stray animals. Cities should be instructing law enforcement agencies and municipal courts to take violations seriously and issue the warrants to citations. City animal control agencies should also meet accepted standards of humane care of the animals in their charge, and ”provide support for programs that increase adoptions and reclaims by owners, working with responsible humane organizations and rescue groups rather than at cross purposes” (a, 2005).
On further consideration, it becomes clear that it is not just animal control that needs modification in ordinances. Virtually all law and governance require some type of social engineering policy. Prohibitions on speeding, littering, rape, or murder are all policies aimed at discouraging certain behaviors regarded as undesirable. Tax policies influence behavior. Despite variance in degree and directness, the essential element of coercion remains the same. Yet the charge of "social engineering" is most often imposed at those who advocate progressive politics, proposing to use law, tax policies, or other forms of state intervention to correct perceived injustices and equalize opportunity. Social engineering is a useful tool that should be practically used for the violations most applicable to the situation: focusing on the consequences of the citizen’s misconducts.
References:
a. (2005). The Cat Owner’s Association, Inc. Back to Basics for Animal Ordinances
(Part II). Social Engineering - An exercise in futility. Retrieved September 12,
2005 from: http://www.cfa.org/articles/legislative/social-engineering.html
DOJ. (2001). Megan’s Law. Retrieved September 11, 2005, from:
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
Reynolds, M. (2005). Three Strikes You’re Out. Retrieved September 11, 2005, from:
http://www.threestrikes.org/
Schmalleger, M. L. (2002). Criminal Law Today: An Introduction with Capstone Cases,
Second Edition. (14-15).
Wikipedia. (2005). Definition of Social Engineering. Retrieved September 11, 2005
from: http://www.answers.com/topic/social-engineering?hl=social&hl=engineering
Back
|
