Should an unjust law be broken?

[Sivin]

20 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

We also obviously have different feelings about whether or not there are times that the law should be broken for the greater good, but that can be saved for another thread if you desire.  

Wasn't addressed to me, but I'm interested. Manning is a good jumping off point, what does the board say? Personally, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, do what is right as a human being. On the other hand, I cannot say I am a fan of the implications of breaking the law and not suffering any consequences. 

[Theda Baratheon]

Maybe we need a list of unjust laws to bounce off of first.

[Week]

Quote

There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all.”

Letter From Birmingham Jail
Martin Luther King, Jr. • Liberation • May 1963

[Dr. Pepper]

I think it definitely depends on what it is.

 I mean, MLK Day just passed and many of us are trying to find ways to honor his legacy every day.  Can any decent or reasonable person honestly say that black Americans should not have broken laws in the effort to end segregation in the U.S.?  Can any decent or reasonable person say that they deserved to be punished to the fullest extent of the law for sharing a lunch counter with whites?  I think most people would agree that there was something unjust and that it needed to be made right, even if laws had to be broken to get there.  Some laws need to be broken, the law isn't always right.

I agree that with Manning it gets a bit complicated because she did suffer consequences, extreme consequences.  I believe she performed a public service because the information in that data release was something the public needed to know.  Like I said, it's complicated.  

[Iskaral Pust]

I think any liberal/progressive would say unjust laws should be protested and broken as a form of protest to force change for the better.  That's a big part of the job description.

The problem is that "unjust" can be highly subjective and selective, and some laws will impact people differently and thereby seem or be unjust to some in pursuit of an over-arching societal goal.  For example, providing or prohibiting abortion will be unjust to someone.  So sometimes it's not acceptable to break or even persistently protest an unjust law.  If the democratic process has fully evaluated and affirmed the law and you still think it's unjust, then it's time for you to work through the democratic process rather than breaking or protesting.  I think civil disobedience is more appropriate to draw attention to outmoded laws rather than minority/individual dissent with laws from the legitimate legislative process of the state.  We don't get to individually choose which laws we'll follow but we can individually choose our political representation.

[Dr. Pepper]

I was doing all the hypotheticals in my head and also realized that sometimes a law might be just and my feelings about one violating it really depends on the person.  So, a billionaire committing tax fraud, have fun in jail asshole.  A middle class family struggling commits tax fraud because they just want to pay their rent, I'm going to look at that a lot more positively and would be in favor of a very light sentence or maybe even just community service so as to not miss any work or lose their job.  

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

 

 

Believe it was Dylan who said "to live outside the law you must be honest".   Breaking any law is always allowing for the possibility of suffering the consequences.  

The "should" part of the question, as others have pointed out, is going to be subjective and depend on where you're standing.  

You can probably surreptitiously break lots of laws, but if you want to do it blatantly to make a point, I guess do it well, and be prepared to own the result.  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

 

Wasn't addressed to me, but I'm interested. Manning is a good jumping off point, what does the board say? Personally, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, do what is right as a human being. On the other hand, I cannot say I am a fan of the implications of breaking the law and not suffering any consequences. 

I certainly don't think laws should be obeyed for the mere fact of being laws.  That would have justified the "Jewish codes" in Nazi Germany and the racist laws in the Jim Crow South.  Nevertheless, choosing to break a law because you believe it is unjust will have consequences and those choosing civil disobediance should be willing to accept those consequences.  

To quote Thoreau and Emerson when Thoreau was imprisioned for not paying taxes:

Emerson:  What are you doing here?

Thoreau:   Why aren't you here with me?

[SerHaHa]

Quote

Nevertheless, choosing to break a law because you believe it is unjust will have consequences and those choosing civil disobediance should be willing to accept those consequences.  

This is the bottom line IMO.  There are more and more regulations and laws created every year, it's accelerating constantly.  Not all of these laws are correct or just - correct and just often being very subjective. Choosing to ignore laws you dislike or disagree with is going to carry consequence should you be caught and prosecuted. 

[Altherion]

There's no universal definition of justice or universal agreement on whether laws as currently defined are a good idea in the first place. I do not find the argument about the democratic process persuasive: in our democracy, the better organized and better funded groups will usually have their way even if what they're doing is not just and almost universally considered as such. Here are a few ideas for evaluating when it is OK to break a law:

1) Can you predict the consequences? Manning and Wikileaks fail this test big time. The US government is mainly angry about its secrets, but the leaks had serious consequences elsewhere. Here's a positive article from 2011 pointing out how the leaks contributed to the Arab Spring... but of course the events in Tunisia triggered much larger revolutions which were nowhere near as positive.

2) Does it seriously harm people who are only tangentially related to the injustice? Obviously, breaking any law usually causes some sort of harm to the property or opportunities of somebody else, but does what you're doing cause somebody to be killed or injured or traumatized?

3) Can you get away with it? This comes in two flavors:

3a) Is the law something trivial that nobody really cares about when broken on a small scale?

3b) Is this civil disobedience? That is, are you counting on a large number of aggrieved people coming to your defense?

[Kelli Fury]

No conplicated answer for me, just yes

[maarsen]

Unjust or plain stupid laws have been broken and ignored for years. Lots of them are on the books for the sole purpose of slapping down people that the powers that be don't like. Break em if you got em. 

[DunderMifflin]

Absolutely.

I mean dont break an unjust law just because it's unjust. For example if you think marijuana illegalization is unjust, don't smoke weed just because it's an unjust law. Smoke it because/if you want to.

I consider anything that attempts to take away my sovereignty over my own body a pretty sinister thing. Which is one reason I have a big problem with people who try to claim morality based on which US politician they support.

[karaddin]

I think accepting the consequences of civil disobedience can both serve to further highlight the injustice of the law, and also serves as a testament to your character. It's why I find those so insistent that Manning should be serving the entirety of the unprecedented sentence that would destroy her entire life utterly baffling. I'm in the yes camp fwiw.

[Sivin]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I certainly don't think laws should be obeyed for the mere fact of being laws.  That would have justified the "Jewish codes" in Nazi Germany and the racist laws in the Jim Crow South.  Nevertheless, choosing to break a law because you believe it is unjust will have consequences and those choosing civil disobediance should be willing to accept those consequences.  

To quote Thoreau and Emerson when Thoreau was imprisioned for not paying taxes:

Emerson:  What are you doing here?

Thoreau:   Why aren't you here with me?

I've been thinking about @Week 's response all during work and I agree with what Dr. King wrote in that address and the methods he and his allies used to accomplish change, and I had the Civil Rights movement in mind when I made this thread. But at the same time I believe in deference to the laws established within our Republic. Hence my conflict. 

Scott, you said it most in line with my own thinking. Disobeying a law you believe to be wrong can absolutely be the highest form of patriotism, if your motives are honest and you accept the consequences. What I cannot abide is someone who breaks the law and seeks to avoid those consequences like Assange and Snowden (Assange claiming the sexual assault charges are trumped up). Having the conviction to be convicted for your beliefs adds a great deal of weight to any noble cause.

@Altherion , I find your guidelines mostly reasonable, but short of definitive.

In the case of Manning, I want to feel as if this all played out reasonably appropriate (minus her enduring such hellish conditions of imprisonment ) as I believe in broad strokes the right thing was done by all parties, but I am left feeling unsettled. Perhaps I am just weary of an extremely toxic political climate at this point though and can no longer trust my instincts.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, SerHaHa said:

This is the bottom line IMO.  There are more and more regulations and laws created every year, it's accelerating constantly.  Not all of these laws are correct or just - correct and just often being very subjective. Choosing to ignore laws you dislike or disagree with is going to carry consequence should you be caught and prosecuted. 

So? No one is saying that there won't be consequences.

[Arkhangel]

I think it's entirely dependent on the circumstances. Personally, I feel it's unjust that people get fined for jaywalking but I'm not about to rush out and do it in front of a cop in order to make a point. On the other hand, if it's a law which prevents freedom of expression or the right to peaceful protest, well, maybe that's a different story. I think for me the line is between 'is it dumb?' and 'is it seriously harming people's rights?'

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, WinterFox said:

I find your guidelines mostly reasonable, but short of definitive.

In the case of Manning, I want to feel as if this all played out reasonably appropriate (minus her enduring such hellish conditions of imprisonment ) as I believe in broad strokes the right thing was done by all parties, but I am left feeling unsettled. Perhaps I am just weary of an extremely toxic political climate at this point though and can no longer trust my instincts.

My guidelines were just ideas; I don't think they're comprehensive or definite either.

Manning's case was of a type that embarrasses the system and the system tends to react very, very badly to such cases. In this instance, they took a tortured soul and decided to amplify the torture. Manning should be grateful to the Founders -- they knew this tendency very well and tried to beat it down with the Eighth Amendment (though they did not entirely succeed). If you want to see a lesser version of this take a look at this case.

[Gorn]

7 hours ago, WinterFox said:

Disobeying a law you believe to be wrong can absolutely be the highest form of patriotism, if your motives are honest and you accept the consequences. What I cannot abide is someone who breaks the law and seeks to avoid those consequences like Assange and Snowden (Assange claiming the sexual assault charges are trumped up). Having the conviction to be convicted for your beliefs adds a great deal of weight to any noble cause.

@Altherion , I find your guidelines mostly reasonable, but short of definitive.

In the case of Manning, I want to feel as if this all played out reasonably appropriate (minus her enduring such hellish conditions of imprisonment ) as I believe in broad strokes the right thing was done by all parties, but I am left feeling unsettled. Perhaps I am just weary of an extremely toxic political climate at this point though and can no longer trust my instincts.

Regarding accepting the consequences, I feel that it is reasonable to try to avoid trial if you have reasonable doubts that it will be a fair trial, or if the accusing country's justice system is not a fair one. Since the US regularly uses (or has used in recent past) extrajudicial killings (drone strikes), torture (sorry, "enhanced interrogation") and violates habeas corpus (Guantanamo), Assange and Snowden's actions are perfectly understandable.

Another way that justice system can be unjust (even while it operates within the bounds of the law) is by applying different punishments for a similar crime, or by quietly ignoring the wrongdoing. That way, someone like Petraeus gets a slap on the wrist while Chelsea Manning gets a punishment of unprecedented harshness.

[Gorn]

Also, to answer the original question directly: yes, unjust laws should be broken. Let's remember that Nelson Mandela actually was guilty of charges that he was sentenced for, and that the apartheid South African court which convicted him made a legally correct decision. However, legal and moral are two widely different things, and Mandela's actions (while illegal) were morally correct.