The balance between freedom and security is always hard to strike in democratic societies. There is a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” But we necessarily give up certain individual liberties when we enter into society for the betterment of everyone. Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau addressed this balance in his treatise on The Social Contract in 1762. According to Rousseau, “Laws are, properly speaking, only the conditions of civil association.” He also specified that the “… law considers subjects en masse and actions the abstract, and never a particular person or action.” (The Social Contract, Chapter VI)
Traffic laws are a clear example of a necessary condition for modern civil association. In order to help remind people of these laws and a police presence enforcing them, many of us have had the experience of being stopped at a roadside checkpoint. This seems very in keeping with Rousseau – everyone gets stopped and asked to show their licenses, regardless of who they are. They apply to everyone en masse regarding an abstract behavior we as a society find undesirable.
On the other hand, a fundamental tenet of the justice system in the United States is that you are innocent until proven guilty. At a traffic checkpoint, there is a certain presumption of guilt without any evidence of misconduct. Is it a violation of my personal right to move about freely (in accordance with the laws, of course) when I am stopped at a checkpoint simply because someone else on the road might be breaking the law? Seems a silly question to even ask when the relative inconvenience for everyone stopped is so small a detractor compared to the societal good of apprehending violators. But what if we take this to the next level?
The magazine New Scientist recently suggested that we should each give the police our DNA. DNA samples are powerful forensic evidence at a crime scene to identify culprits or exonerate those wrongly accused, but DNA evidence is less effective without an existing sample to match it against. The more DNA samples you have, the faster you are able to locate criminals – makes sense! And it’s Rousseau-like in its blanket nature – no profiling, no randomized samples, just everyone’s DNA, equal before the law.
How many of those who willingly pull over at traffic stops and flash their license though would also offer up a cheek swab or finger prick for the local sheriff’s records? UK police had been creating a DNA database for years, collecting samples from everyone they arrested – whether they were eventually convicted or not – and keeping them on record. Then, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it was a violation to keep genetic samples from people not convicted of a crime and ordered as many as 4.4 million DNA samples destroyed.
Where do you think the balance between freedom and security should be?