Tuesday, April 9, 1996
Police cannot regulate civic responsibility by issuing
jaywalking tickets
I still remember the first time my mother and I walked down to
the neighborhood park. I was about 5 years old, and when I saw the
swings and jungle gyms waiting for me, I charged across the street
at full speed without thinking twice about it.
This, of course, was a major mistake. My mother began screaming
about the horrors of street crossing, and I was forced to listen to
her lecture about the correct way in which to cross the street. You
all know the drill; look both ways and cross in the crosswalk. Mom
said that by following these rules, I would be safe from pending
danger while walking in an urban environment. Since I had my eye on
the last open swing, I took her word for it.
That was 17 years ago, and I have since followed Mom’s rules of
street crossing. However, I found out last quarter that the rules
have been changed. My life was saved once more from the perils of
the streets  not by my mom, but by two friendly Los Angeles
Police Department law enforcement officers.
While walking into Westwood one night with a friend, two police
officers all but drove their car up onto the sidewalk to stop us
from continuing to risk our lives. It seems that when you cross the
street in Westwood Village, it is not enough to look both ways and
cross in the crosswalk.
Although there were no cars anywhere in sight, and the traffic
light was green, our risky behavior was cited as crossing while
that little hand was red. The officers quickly informed us that
they were saving our lives, gave us the same lecture that Mom had
given so long ago, and just for good measure, followed up the
lecture with a $55 citation for a moving violation.
Of course, I attempted to reason with these gentlemen, and
attempted to point out that the only traffic danger near us at the
time was the evasive action which they took by crossing lanes and
two intersections in order to catch us in our illegal act.
Surprisingly, my plea fell upon deaf ears; we both got the
citations and I am sure that the officers left the scene feeling
good for having once again instilled civic responsibility in a
couple of reckless youths.
My question after this incident was simply this: WHY?
Conservatives and liberals alike complain about big government and
cite their own respective examples of how governmental restrictions
will hurt our country, be it interference with business or
violation of individual rights.
But if the leaders of our government and politics believe this,
if intrusive governmental regulation of civic behavior is inimical
to our rights as citizens, how can such an evident example of
governmental patrimony such as jaywalking ordinances still be on
the books?
I am not claiming that my jaywalking citation was a violation of
my constitutional rights, nor am I claiming that my friend and I
were singled out because of some sort of ugly discrimination or
stereotype. In truth, I received my citation because I broke a law,
albeit an incredibly simple and stupid law.
Therefore, because I agreed to live within the bounds of our
present legal system, I deserved that ticket. My claim is not that
the law was applied unfairly, but instead that this type of
ordinance has no place in a society that awards its citizens
considerable civil liberties, and with these liberties, civic
responsibilities.
The rationale behind an ordinance of this type is based on old
common law beliefs that the law, and therefore government, exists
to protect citizens from the actions of others and from their own
actions. In the old days, the king, his religious advisors and his
magistrates decided what was best for the citizens of the state,
even if this meant purification by torture.
But in our present-day attempt at democracy, this type of
patrimony is not a preferred role for government. Still, ordinances
which serve only to enforce civil common sense and a basic level of
civic and self responsibility continue to be enforced by the police
power of the state.
I am not suggesting that we must reject all standards of public
conduct, or that we must digress to a level of legal and social
anarchy. The law and civil ordinances exist to maintain the safety
and civility of public spaces, and to deter antisocial behavior in
our communities.
However, ordinances which do nothing more than enforce acts of
self-responsibility, such as jaywalking and bicycle ordinances (it
seems you can’t ride your bike on the sidewalk anymore  I
recently got a ticket for this dangerous offense, too), are not
necessary to accomplish the governmental goal of a civil society.
They serve only to irritate those people who do act responsibly and
follow the guidelines for personal safety that Mom taught us so
long ago.
In truth, I do not look both ways before I cross the street
because the law tells me to do so, or because I fear police action
if I fail to cross in the crosswalk. I act responsibly and
carefully for my own safety and the safety of others. Instilling
civic responsibility is not the job of the government or the
police. Only the individual can be held accountable for his or her
own reckless or dangerous acts. Only when these acts intrude upon
the lives of others in society does the government have the duty to
step in and take control.
Jaywalking is not an offense which will significantly harm
others, and therefore, the police should attend to more serious
criminal activity, such as robberies, civil violence and underage
patronage by high-profile UCLA athletes in local drinking
establishments.
Ordinances such as those prohibiting jaywalking represent the
institution of an antiquated position of the government as a
patrimonial body.
Although the intrusion of jaywalking ordinances seems trivial,
if this governmental mothering is allowed, where will it end? Will
the government be allowed to legislate on anything that could be
potentially dangerous to the individual, such as unprotected sex or
even the foods that we eat? This role of government has no place in
a political community which affords its citizens such liberties and
responsibilities as documented in our Constitution.
If government officials believe that we can handle the
responsibility of free speech, they certainly should extend their
faith in this nation’s citizens to cover crossing the street. If
our legislators do not, then we will never be able to grow up, and
Mom will still have to worry every time we walk to the park.
Burke is a fourth-year political science/history student.