SOME LAWS TEST BOUNDARIES OF COMMON SENSE

In a civilized nation where order is regulated by laws, it is easy to look for legal remedies to every problem that comes along. Some laws define what is against the law and establish penalties for breaking those laws. Some laws define what is legally required and establish penalties or incentives for either breaking or complying with those laws.

Nowadays, there is very little we do or say that isn't touched in one way or another by some law. Even our own private thoughts sometimes come dangerously close to being bound by some legal requirement or prohibition.

While we rely on laws every day to protect and guide us, there is a modern thrust to lawmaking whose aim is to codify common sense. If our own thought processes tell us that we shouldn't light a match to check the fuel level in our lawn mower's fuel tank, today's lawmakers would suggest there should be a law against doing something so stupid. In particular, those who make laws would perceive the death of some teen-ager, earning money during the summer by mowing lawns, who is horribly burned after striking a match and holding it over an open tank of gasoline as a good reason to pass just such a law.

When these laws are adopted, the main effect is to make us -- society -- feel good about ourselves. Deep down, we all comprehend that no law will prevent another lamebrain from using the light of a Bic to look into a fuel tank.

These days, laws are given names, usually of victims of some terrible tragedy. Lawmakers sense that such legal memorials to the ugly events in our lives are a balm for our collective social conscience. But do these laws really help us to heal? Sometimes. Do they provide ironclad guarantees that we won't be hurt again? Rarely.

One such proposal swiftly arose following a carjacking in Independence, Mo., last month. A 6-year-old boy died after being tangled in the vehicle's seat-belt straps and dragged along an interstate at high speed. The carjacker had just been released from a county jail even though there was a warrant for his arrest pending elsewhere.

The so-called Jake's Law would require law-enforcement officials to check a database of pending charges and warrants before anyone is released from jail. Makes sense. Indeed, this is exactly what law-enforcement officials routinely do every day -- with no law requiring it.

There are statewide and national databases that police rely on for criminal information. These databases are invaluable tools in the pursuit and apprehension of criminal. But mistakes can be happen, even in a civilized -- and computerized -- society. What law will ever eliminate human blunders?