Political Awareness

Note: Political Awareness never authorizes its published communication on behalf of any candidate or their committees.

When Fear of Misuse Shapes Our Willingness to Enforce the Law

In democratic societies, the rule of law is often described as a stabilizing force—one that applies equally, regardless of power, popularity, or circumstance. Yet in practice, enforcing the law is rarely a simple act. It frequently involves judgment, discretion, and concern for unintended consequences.

This raises a difficult and uncomfortable question:

Should fear of how a law might be misused in the future prevent us from enforcing it correctly in the present?

At first glance, the concern is understandable. History offers many examples of legal tools being weaponized after periods of crisis. Safeguards erode, precedents expand, and powers granted for one purpose are later repurposed for another. Fear of that outcome can make restraint feel responsible—even virtuous.

But restraint carries its own risks.

When enforcement decisions are guided not by what the law requires today, but by speculation about how enforcement might be abused tomorrow, the law itself becomes conditional. Not on facts, but on forecasts. Not on conduct, but on fear.

This creates a quiet paradox:

In an effort to protect the system from future abuse, the system may be weakened in the present.

The rule of law depends not only on statutes and courts, but on consistency. If enforcement is selectively withheld out of concern for how others might act later, then enforcement becomes uneven by design. Over time, this erodes public confidence—not because laws are too strong, but because they appear negotiable.

There is also a deeper democratic concern. When laws are not enforced because of who might use them in the future, enforcement decisions become political rather than legal. The standard shifts from “Is this lawful?” to “Who benefits from enforcing it?” That shift—however well-intentioned—moves authority away from institutions and toward individuals.

None of this suggests that blind enforcement is desirable. Discretion exists for a reason. Context matters. Proportionality matters. Safeguards matter.

But discretion rooted in fear is different from discretion rooted in principle.

A system that allows unlawful behavior to persist—not because it is lawful, but because enforcing the law feels dangerous—faces a difficult question of legitimacy. If laws are only enforced when their future use feels safe, then the law no longer governs outcomes. Anxiety does.

The challenge, then, is not choosing between enforcement and restraint, but distinguishing between protecting the law from misuse and withholding the law out of fear. Democracies falter not only when power is abused, but when responsibility is deferred.

The hardest decisions are often not about whether a law is good or bad—but whether allowing it to be ignored today creates greater harm than the risk of it being misused tomorrow.

That question has no easy answer. But avoiding it altogether may be the most consequential choice of all.

Conclusion

The internet is a powerful tool—but it is not designed to deliver truth. It is designed to deliver engagement. When we approach information with a predetermined conclusion, we will almost always find content that confirms it, whether that conclusion is correct or not. Careful inquiry requires slowing down, questioning sources, and resisting the comfort