The law of unintended consequences has been used and heard many years before but it is never fully explained. It supposes that the deeds of people, conduct, and actions have impending impacts which are not expected or intended. Various professionals have divergent views concerning the law of unintended consequences. For instance, economists as well as social scientists have for a long time believed in the effect of this law for hundreds of years. However, politicians as well as widely acclaimed opinion do not recognize this law. In this paper, I intend to illustrate that it is not true all crime stories are about the law of unintended consequences.
There is a source of the law of unintended consequence called the imperious immediacy of interest. This gives scenarios where an individual is very keen on arriving at some intended consequence of a deed that he resolutely opts to disregard any kind of unintended impacts. It has been noted that FDA comes up with serious non intentional consequences by controlling production of pharmaceutical drugs.
By directing that all drugs should be very safe as well as effective for the treatment of a particular ailment as it has instructed since 1962, the agency has hindered a great deal within the years that have gone by the production of new drugs (Merton 34). An unintended consequence is that a lot of people continue to lose their loved ones or suffer tremendously yet they could have managed to exist. I will use this example to allude to the crime stories that exist to prove that it is true that they are about the law of unintended consequence.
Crime exists in the communities. Most times the people who commit crimes normally have a reason that leads them to commit such deeds. A person may steal someone’s property to sell so that he may use that money to cater for his own needs. The unintended consequence is that the individual whose property has been stolen loses his property and the enjoyment or benefit he derived from that property. Essentially, criminals are concerned of their self interest without any care to what their actions would cause to their victims. This is a perfect example of crime relying essentially on the law of unintended consequence.
In the police profession, their philosophy is guided by compliance to natural and true justice. However, within years of practice, corruption has cut deep roots in the profession. Apprehended criminals are set free all the time because they have connections or networks. The result is that bad elements keep coming back to the communities and continue their criminal activities. This has led to the development of a concept known as professional crime practiced by the police. Police officers tired of arresting people who get freed because of networks they have at times decide to execute criminals so as to get rid of them from the society. This is crime. The difference is that this act of crime is not related in any way to the law of unintended consequence. It is very clear using such a crime story, that such police men engage in crime with a clear intent of executing certain people to achieve a certain end.
In conclusion, the law of unintended consequences is not supported by everybody in the society. There are various causes for the law of unintended consequences, one being the imperious immediacy of self interest used to explain that it is true some crime stories are essentially about the law of unintended consequences. However, another school of thought illustrated above proves that not all crime stories are about the law of unintended consequences.
Work Cited
Merton, Robert. Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays. New York: Free Press, 1976.Print.