Which theory would most strongly support a law against jaywalking, aimed at preventing behavior that could lead to harm?

The idea of legal paternalism supports the creation of a law against jaywalking because it emphasizes the role of the state or legal system in protecting individuals from harm, even when those individuals can make their own choices. Legal paternalism is based on the belief that the government has the authority to intervene in personal freedoms to prevent people from engaging in actions that could significantly harm themselves or others.

In the case of jaywalking, the risk that pedestrians could be seriously injured in traffic provides a strong justification for regulations that limit such behavior to enhance safety. By enacting laws against jaywalking, the government takes a protective stance, prioritizing public safety over individual autonomy in this instance.

Legal realism focuses on how laws are applied in practice and the realities of the legal system rather than just theoretical principles. Utilitarianism considers the greatest good for the greatest number, which could support regulations but doesn't specifically pinpoint the need for paternalism. Social contract theory is about mutual consent in governance but does not primarily address laws aimed at protecting individuals from their own harmful choices.