Hard cases make bad law
Hard cases make bad law

Normally, having something named after you is a great honour. The addition of your name to a building, a trophy or a prize is a mark of major esteem and should be a source of pride. However, one thing you don't want to have named after you is a law. If this happens to you, it almost certainly means you have been the victim of a terrible tragedy, and are very likely dead.

The most recent example of a named law is 'Martyn's Law', soon to be passed by the UK government. It is named after Martyn Hett, who was killed in the terrorist attack at the Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena in 2017. Martyn's mother, Figen Murray, believed that the death of her son could have been prevented if the Manchester Arena had had proper measures in place to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Her very personal campaign led to the government introducing a law making it compulsory for all venues hosting large events to have anti-terrorist measures in place.

We should not dismiss or minimise Ms Murray's grief and anguish at her appalling loss. Her energy in campaigning for a change in the law to make people safer is wholly admirable. It is a good idea for large venues to take measures to prevent terrorist attacks. But it is not a good idea because of what happened to Martyn Hett.

This is the idea expressed in the phrase hard cases make bad law. What this means is that the emotions aroused by one extreme example are not a good basis for introducing a law or other measure. It is understandable why campaigners and journalists latch on to one person's experience when lobbying for change. It is much easier to relate to an individual with a story than to consider the wider issues. But it is not an honest or convincing form of argument, and will not win a debate.

Let's take an example. Say you're debating the motion This house would legalise assisted dying. This is a highly topical debate, as the UK parliament is due to debate a change in the law at the end of November 2024. If you are arguing for the proposition, you could give the example of Sue Lawford, a 70 year old retired NHS worker, who, in 2022, helped a paralysed friend of hers to travel to Switzerland to access assisted dying (which is legal in Switzerland). She was arrested at 5.30 am the day after her return from Switzerland, held for 19 hours, and subjected to criminal investigation for six months - all for helping a friend who couldn't help herself. Such a story, if well told, will undoubtedly stir listeners to a strong emotional response in favour of legalising assisted dying. The trouble is, it's not a very good argument. It takes an extreme, outlying example, and uses it to justify a radical, and potentially dangerous, change in the law. You lay yourself open to rebuttal from the opposition, who can express every sympathy for the kind intentions of Ms Lawford, but can then return to all the dangers of the proposed law. For every well-intentioned friend saved from prosecution, there could be hundreds of infirm or disabled people who might feel under pressure to end their lives for fear of being a burden; they will far outnumber the most extreme cases. Much better to base your argument on the wider principle that people should have the right to choose what to do with their lives, including ending them if they no longer wish to continue. This is a stronger argument because it is rooted in a universally applicable principle, not based on one extreme example.

Similarly, the opposition in this debate could cite the example of a disabled Canadian woman who, also in 2022, was encouraged to access assisted dying (which is legal in Canada) because she could not afford anywhere to live. She recorded a video before her death in which she said, 'the government sees me as expendable trash, a complainer, useless ....' But this too is a weak argument, as it is based on the most extreme case. The proposition can reply that their measure will have sufficient safeguards to prevent anyone being treated like this. Better to base your speech on the fundamental principle that every life is of value, and that care not killing is the best response to suffering. This is much harder to rebut, as it requires the proposition to prove that their principle (personal autonomy) is more important than yours (the sanctity of life); a bigger ask than finding ways of preventing extreme bad things from happening.

So, to sum up, don't look for the worst things that happen because of the status quo (proposition) or the worst things that could happen because of a proposed change (opposition). Step back, look at the bigger picture, and understand and articulate the principles behind your side of the debate. Then you will be on much surer ground, and the debate will be of much higher quality.