Home Opinion Columns Gods Advocate vs. the Devils Advocate: Utahs new uninsured motorist law

Gods Advocate vs. the Devils Advocate: Utahs new uninsured motorist law

January 11, 2015

Written by Greta Hyland

Started by the Catholic Church in the 1500s, the Devil’s Advocate (advocatus diaboli), or the Promoter of Justice, and God’s Advocate (advocatus dei), the Promoter of the Cause, would argue over canonization. The God’s Advocate would argue why a person deserved sainthood, and the Devil’s Advocate, literally a lawyer, would take a skeptical view of the person’s character and look for evidence why the person should not gain sainthood. Then they would each make their case.

Before Paul Dail wrote his Devil’s Advocate article on Utah’s new uninsured motorist law, I was skeptical. I am skeptical of any law that allows law enforcement or the government to take property. But it went deeper than that for me; it went to a moral issue in my mind. So while I found many of Paul’s arguments to be well-articulated and valid, and I agreed with many things he said, I found his argument against uninsured people to be harsh, insensitive, and relentless, much the way I see the law.

This article has been a hard one to write. I have started, scratched, re-started, deleted, and rewritten this piece half a dozen times now, but it was not until I read Paul’s article that it crystallized in my mind. I think this law is bad for many reasons, not the least of which being that government is supposed to protect life, liberty, and property, not take it. I’m also concerned with the inherent risk of abuse of power and the lure of dishonesty in it. However, my grievance with this law comes from a human perspective, not a property perspective.

While on the surface the new Utah law allowing law enforcement to seize vehicles from owners without insurance seems like a legitimate and logical course of action and may even have good intentions, we must weigh our laws in light of the fruit they will bear and the possible disaster and misery they will wreak in people’s lives.

As I read through my colleague’s article, “Devil’s Advocate: Is the new Utah uninsured motorist law just glorified theft?” what was sorely lacking was sympathy. You see, no one decides not to buy insurance just because they don’t want to. They don’t buy it because they are struggling financially.

I’m willing to bet that most people who are driving without insurance are poor and are hoping they can catch up. You see, poor people have to prioritize in ways that better off people do not. How do I know this? Because I have been both poor and financially well-off. I have had to make those choices, and I am telling you, if I had to choose between groceries for my children or car insurance, you can bet I’d choose the groceries every time. As Paul’s article stated, only 3% of Utahns drive without insurance. How many of those people do you think are wealthy? I’d bet not one.

In the classic book “Oliver Twist,” Charles Dickens says, “Men who look on nature, and their fellow-men, and cry that all is dark and gloomy, are in the right; but the sombre colours are reflections from their own jaundiced eyes and hearts. The real hues are delicate, and need a clearer vision.”

We need to look at our laws with softer, more delicate eyes. If a poor person gets their car taken away and impounded because they did not have current vehicle insurance, chances are they will not be able to afford to get their car out of the impoundment and more than likely will lose it to a police auction. And do you think they will be able to run out and buy a new one? Probably not.

Furthermore, without a car they probably won’t be able to get to work, thus increasing the chances that they will lose their job, their income, and their ability to buy groceries or have health insurance. While the negative impacts of this law on the poor are quite obvious, the consequences will inevitably impact all of us, whether through the need for more state or federal aid, or through more crime and tragedy as people become desperate.

Why is it that we can soften our hearts toward the poor during the holidays and then be so harsh and condemning the rest of the year? Our desire to protect our possessions should never override our ability to reason and sympathize. When our possessions become more important than people, we have lost our way, and when our laws are used as weapons against the poor, we are all guilty. And the crime is a heinous one because we don’t even see it.

Perhaps instead of taking people’s vehicles, the state of Utah should attempt to help the poor stay insured. Instead of trying to cut food stamps, maybe we should increase them so that people don’t have to choose between food or insurance. Maybe we could even offer a hotline people can call for a ride if their insurance lapses. Wouldn’t that be more proactive? Wouldn’t it be the right thing to do? Heck, it might even be more cost effective. Plus, it will keep law enforcement officers from being in the awful position of having to take away a person’s ability to make a living.

I do understand the arguments for this law, but I think we have a bit of tunnel vision and are missing the bigger picture. From my vantage point, this law further shows how only the poor understand the poor and how insensitive and blind those who are well off can be, however well-intentioned.

Greta Hyland has a Masters degree in Environmental Policy & Management and has worked for the BLM and the NPS as well as for non-profit organizations. She is a regular contributor to the Utah Adventure Journal and is the Copy Editor at the Independent. She writes regularly on her blog about environmental policy issues affecting the southwest, as well as personal narratives about outdoor recreation and simple living. Her blog can be found at www.thesouthwestjournal.wordpress.com A Utah native, Greta is a consummate desert rat and loves exploring the southwest. She can be reached at [email protected]