Bedtime and Punishment

Type 1 rules are the most straightforward. They are rules that have an official penalty and no unofficial penalty. It is how we traditionally think of laws and justice in our society. It is also the ideal rule because, in many cases, unofficial penalties accompany official penalties, a phenomenon associated with Type 2 rules. For example, it is democratically elected officials who put in place laws and their corresponding official punishments. Elected officials are graced with their power via the “consent of the governed,” as outlined in the American Declaration of Independence1. In essence, we, the general public, choose the official penalties, a byproduct of our democratic process. And there is no unofficial penalty that lingers with the perpetrator. As optimal as this type of rule is, examples of it are less common than one may think. Our society has a largely unforgiving attitude toward ex-convicts, which contributes to an overall unofficial penalty akin to mob justice. 

An example of a Type 1 rule is a first-time misdemeanor vandalism charge as a minor. In California, US, any vandalism in which the cost of defacing is less than $400 is deemed a misdemeanor. According to California Penal Code Section 594, a misdemeanor vandalism charge may carry a fine of no more than $1000, probation, community service, and/or repairing damages2. Further, under California WIC 781, one can seal and destroy one’s juvenile criminal record3. Sealing and destroying one’s record prevents future employers, state licensing agencies, school officials, or other entities from seeing one’s record—in other words, this prevents a Type 2 scenario. While one still has to suffer the official penalty put in place, one will not face unofficial consequences (such as discrimination) post-sentence. 

An unpunished non-adherence of a bedtime is not a Type 1 scenario because one’s parents neither punish one officially nor unofficially, whereas an official penalty is something Type 1 rules require. That is not to say a bedtime situation can not be a Type 1 rule. For example, if one’s parents decide and state beforehand that for every minute after 11 PM one is awake, one must do four push-ups the following day, but if they do not seek out any further punishment, then there is an official set penalty, but no unofficial penalty that comes with it. 

Type 2 rules are rules that execute both official and unofficial penalties. Unofficial penalties, unlike their official counterparts described above, are not enacted through our general consensus but rather by the whims of mob-mentality society. Unofficial penalties are neither outlined explicitly nor standardized. According to Employment of Persons Released from Federal Prison in 2010 by E. Ann Carson, Ph.D. et al., one in three ex-convicts found no employment whatsoever in a four-year period after being released from prison, and the employment rate never grew above 40%4. Future unemployment and societal ostracization do not officially exist in our justice system because we as a society have come to a general consensus that these are unjust, yet the reality is that these unofficial penalties are just as real to the ex-convicts as the official ones. Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued for natural rights and a just partnership between the people and the government. In The Social Contract, Rousseau writes that it is the people who are the subjects of laws, and so it is the people who “ought to be their authors” and that “the conditions of society ought to be regulated solely by those who come together to form it” (Rousseau, bk. 2 ch. 6)5. It is the democratic due process that every citizen participates in that gives laws their power and their justice. 

Let us once again refer to our bedtime rules. Type 2 rules require both an official and unofficial penalty, neither of which exists in our given example. However, if unofficial penalties such as groundings are unexpectedly handed out a week later in addition to the four-push-ups-per-minute penalty, then the bedtime rule would be a Type 2. 

Type 3 rules only have unofficial penalties. In reality, there are certain situations, however rare, in which an unofficial penalty is carried out even before the justice system can decide whether or not to deliver its official penalty. In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act attempts to limit such unofficial penalties. For example, in order to reduce discrimination in employment processes, the law limits employers from disqualifying people accused of a crime at the beginning of a hiring process. The law is somewhat vague about the definition of the beginning of a hiring process. Still, it acknowledges the existence of such discriminatory tendencies in hiring organizations.  Acquitted or not, people even accused of a crime can receive discrimination from job opportunities, a textbook example of an unofficial penalty. In this case, before democratic due process has had a chance to run its course and official penalties stand undetermined, those just accused of crimes are still vulnerable to unofficial penalties outside the law.

The original bedtime situation does not constitute a Type 3 rule, either, because there is no unofficial penalty. Still, we can alter the situation slightly to create a Type 3 scenario. Consider again the 11 PM bedtime with no official penalty, only this time the parents change their mind a few days later to suddenly reduce allowances without prior warning. This would be a case of Type 3. 

Type 4 “rules” have neither an official nor an unofficial penalty. Ironically, Type 4 “rules,” in their purest and truest sense, are not rules at all but rather guidelines. There are two sub-scenarios to think through in this category. The first is the case where the penalty is so small that it is ignorable, and the second is where there is no penalty at all, official or unofficial. The first case can be observed in illegal activities that are not classified as criminal activities. These are often punishable by small fines rather than prison sentences. Such illegal activities can include littering, speeding, and, surprisingly, cutting down protected “heritage trees” in Washington, D.C., US. These trees are centuries old and protected by the Tree Canopy Protection Act, a law that charges violators with “a fine of not less than $300 per each inch of the circumference of the Special Tree in question.”7 According to an article by the D.C.-based newspaper DCist, real estate developers are often willing to bear these fines, and the trees are “sometimes removed anyway [...], if doing so boosts [the land’s] property value.”8 This does not mean that the government has legalized the cutting down of trees, per se, but they have put a price on breaking the law rather than a punishment for it. A crime punished by a fine is a crime only for the poor. It becomes not a question of whether or not to commit the crime but rather whether or not one can afford to commit the crime. Let’s say a billionaire speeding gets charged with the maximum fine of $1000, an amount of money he will more than recuperate soon after through passive income. There is no change to his life whatsoever. Now, let’s say a single mother of three gets caught speeding at the same speed. To this single mother of three, that fine of $1000 is food, rent, utilities, and gasoline. To a billionaire who enjoys speeding, this law has practically no penalty. If, by our democratic definition of law, all are to have an equal stance before the law, how can this be law? How can it be law if it simply does not apply to a certain caste of people while changing lives drastically for another?

The second sub-scenario of “rules” without penalties at all can be found in the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) of the United States. They suggest that drivers must have both hands at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock on the wheel, but there is no fine or penalty whatsoever for not doing so9. The DMV is a government entity with the ability to enforce rules but chooses not to enforce the “rules” about the placement of one’s hands on the steering wheel. It is a suggestion. One’s “correct” positions, according to the law, do not have to be 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock because suggestions, by definition, cannot be laws for their lack of efficacy. 

Type 4 situations are where the bedtime scenario in question resides. Others may believe that rules without enforcement or penalty can still be rules. They may say that rules without enforcement still serve a purpose by stating what is right and what needs to be done. However, this is questionable since a rule that is not enforced and not followed would send the opposite message that it is not of importance and that it doesn’t have to be adhered to. It would bring about the opposite effect to what such people hope for.  It was John Locke, another paramount Enlightenment philosopher, who wrote in one of his most celebrated works, The Second Treatise of Government, that the law would “be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders.” (Locke, ch. 2, sec. 7)10. Laws without penalties are engines without gasoline. They exist for no purpose and can execute no purpose. 

In essence, a good rule must pass two tests. First, there must be some sort of penalty. Without a penalty, it can not carry out an effect. Without effect, it can not be a rule, much less a good one; it is merely a suggestion. Of course, some suggestions are suggestions that one should probably follow: 11 PM is a fairly reasonable bedtime, and sleep is important. Nevertheless, good suggestion or not, it can not be enforced without penalty and is therefore not a rule. Second, the penalties should be official. Without a standardized and clear penalty, potential breakers of the rule will not know what happens to them in response to breaking the rule. Although this may not explicitly encourage rule-breaking, it may reduce the effectiveness of deterrence. Despite these truths, “rules” that do not pass these tests still exist. One such example is the bedtime in question. Without penalties, the bedtime is not 11 PM. It is sound advice that is worthwhile to listen to, but it is not a set rule.

Bibliography

1. “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription.” National Archives, 1 Nov. 2015, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript. Accessed 2 June 2024. 

2. Law Section. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection. xhtml?sectionNum=594.&highlight=true&lawCode=PEN&keyword=minor.  Accessed 2 June 2024. 

3. Ronald, Christina. Sealing/Release/Destruction of Juvenile Court Records Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code 781. 16 Nov. 2021, https://ocprobation.ocgov.com/sites/ocpr/files/2021-11/2-5-009%20SEALING%20RELEASE%20DESTRUCTION%20OF%20JUVENILE%20COURT%20RECORDS%20PURSUANT%20TO%20WELFARE%20AND%20INSTITUTIONS%20CODE%20781.pdf. 

4. Carson, E. Ann, Ph. D., et al. Employment of Persons Released from Federal Prison in 2010. Dec. 2021, https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/eprfp10.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2024. 

5. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract: Or, Principles of Political Law. Also, A Project for a Perpetual Peace. 1893. 

6. Garrison, Melora. UCLA School of Law. “California Law on Employer Use of Criminal Background Checks.” Nolo, 31 Oct. 2012, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-laws-employer-use-arrest-conviction-records.html. Accessed 3 June 2024. 

7. “§ 8–651.04. Preservation of Special Trees; Permits; Penalties.” D.C. Law Library, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/8-651.04. Accessed 3 June 2024. 

8. Fenston, Jacob. “Developer In Takoma Illegally Cuts Heritage Tree.” WAMU 88.5 - American University Radio, 3 Feb. 2022, https://dcist.com/story/22/02/03/developer-cuts-heritage-tree-takoma/. Accessed 3 June 2024. 

9. Omishakin, Toks, et al. DL 600, California Driver’ Handbook . https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handbook-pdf/. Accessed 3 June 2024. 

10. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Barnes & Noble Publishing, 2004.