Introduction
This essay examines the liberal approach to freedom and tolerance, with specific reference to Ball and Dagger’s discussion in *The Limits of Liberal Toleration* (2011, pp. 84-86), and critically evaluates the issues arising from this perspective within a criminological context. Liberalism, as a political philosophy, priorit ascendancy to high political office has long championed individual freedom and tolerance as cornerstone values. However, applying these principles in practice, particularly in relation to criminal justice and societal norms, raises complex challenges. This essay first outlines the liberal commitment to freedom and tolerance as presented by Ball and Dagger, focusing on the balance between individual rights and collective security. It then evaluates the issues this approach generates, including tensions between toleration and the need to enforce laws, and the potential for inequality in its application. By critically engaging with these themes, the essay aims to contribute to a broader understanding of how liberal principles shape criminological debates.
The Liberal Approach to Freedom and Tolerance
Liberalism, as explored by Ball and Dagger (2011, pp. 84-86), places individual freedom at the heart of its ideology, advocating for minimal state intervention in personal lives. This perspective, rooted in the works of thinkers like John Stuart Mill, posits that individuals should be free to act as they choose, provided their actions do not harm others. Freedom, in this sense, encompasses not only physical autonomy but also freedom of thought, expression, and belief. Tolerance—a willingness to accept differing views and lifestyles—is a natural extension of this principle, reflecting a commitment to diversity and pluralism. Ball and Dagger argue that liberals view tolerance as essential for fostering a society where individuals can pursue their own conceptions of the good life without fear of persecution or coercion.
In a criminological context, this approach suggests that the state should refrain from criminalising behaviours that do not directly impair others’ rights. For instance, liberal thought often supports decriminalising victimless crimes, such as certain drug offences, arguing that personal choices should not be subject to legal sanction unless they cause tangible harm. However, as Ball and Dagger note, defining ‘harm’ remains contentious, raising questions about where the boundaries of tolerance should lie. Thus, while liberalism champions freedom and tolerance as fundamental to a just society, its practical application within criminal justice systems remains a subject of ongoing debate.
Issues Arising from the Liberal Approach
While the liberal emphasis on freedom and tolerance offers a compelling framework for respecting individual rights, it presents several challenges, particularly within criminology. One key issue, as highlighted by Ball and Dagger (2011, pp. 84-86), is the difficulty of balancing individual liberty with societal safety. Liberals argue for tolerance of diverse behaviours, but this can conflict with the state’s duty to protect citizens. For example, tolerating certain subcultures or practices deemed harmful—such as hate speech or extremist ideologies—may indirectly contribute to social unrest or violence. In such cases, the liberal reluctance to intervene can be perceived as neglecting the collective good, raising questions about whether absolute tolerance is feasible in practice.
Furthermore, the application of liberal principles can exacerbate inequalities within criminal justice systems. While liberalism advocates equal treatment under the law, systemic biases often undermine this ideal. Research demonstrates that marginalised groups, such as ethnic minorities, are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement, despite liberal calls for impartiality (Reiner, 2010). This suggests that tolerance and freedom are not uniformly experienced, as structural inequalities influence who benefits from liberal protections. Arguably, without addressing these disparities, the liberal approach risks becoming a privilege of the powerful rather than a universal right.
Finally, the subjective nature of ‘harm’ complicates16 creates ambiguity in determining the limits of tolerance. As Ball and Dagger (2011) note, cultural and moral differences complicate consensus on what constitutes harm, leading to inconsistent legal frameworks. For instance, laws on issues like prostitution or drug use vary widely across jurisdictions, reflecting divergent interpretations of harm and freedom. Therefore, while the liberal approach aspires to consistency, its reliance on subjective judgement limits its coherence in addressing complex social issues within criminology.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the liberal approach to freedom and tolerance, as discussed by Ball and Dagger (2011), provides a valuable framework for promoting individual autonomy and diversity within criminological contexts. It underscores the importance of limiting state control over personal choices, advocating for tolerance of differing lifestyles and beliefs. However, this essay has highlighted significant issues, including the tension between individual liberty and societal security, the unequal application of liberal principles, and the ambiguity surrounding the definition of harm. These challenges suggest that while liberalism offers a robust ideological foundation, its practical implementation within criminal justice systems demands careful consideration of competing priorities. Indeed, addressing these limitations is crucial for ensuring that liberal tolerance serves as a tool for justice rather than a barrier to it. Ultimately, ongoing critical analysis of this approach remains essential for navigating the complexities of crime and punishment in diverse societies.
References
- Ball, T. and Dagger, R. (2011) Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal. 8th ed. Pearson.
- Reiner, R. (2010) The Politics of the Police. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.
