Breaking Laws: Society's Influence And Individual Choice

Breaking the law is a complex issue that has been debated by philosophers and legal scholars for centuries. While some argue that individuals have a duty to obey the laws of their society, others believe that there may be times when breaking the law is justifiable, especially when faced with unjust or immoral laws. Interestingly, a poll by onepoll.com found that the average person commits around seven crimes per week, with many of these crimes being considered minor and often excused by the notion that everyone else does it. This normalization of minor crimes, such as speeding, littering, and illegal downloading, has led to a lack of concern about breaking the law among a significant portion of the population. However, despite the varying attitudes and justifications surrounding law-breaking, the potential consequences of legal punishment remain a critical factor in discouraging individuals from engaging in illegal activities.

People may not be aware they are breaking the law

There are many laws that people may not be aware of, and they vary from state to state. For instance, prank calling may be considered harassment or disorderly conduct, and even using a neighbour's unsecured WiFi (with their permission) could be illegal. Throwing out mail that doesn't belong to you is a felony, and you must update your driver's license when moving to a new state. Failing to get a dog license could result in a fine, or even the dog being adopted out or euthanized if stolen.

Other laws that people may be aware of but still break include jaywalking, copyright infringement, and littering. Gambling laws vary by location, as do laws around sharing prescription medication. Underage drinking and marijuana use are forbidden in most states, but there are exceptions. Breaking traffic laws is common, but can have serious consequences, as can distracted driving.

It is important to be aware of the laws in your area to avoid unintentionally breaking them.

Civil disobedience

The concept of civil disobedience has been around for a long time, with early depictions of it seen in Sophocles' play Antigone, where Antigone, one of the daughters of former King of Thebes, defies Creon, the current King, who is trying to stop her from giving her brother a proper burial.

In democratic societies, civil disobedience is not a crime in itself. When an agent who engages in civil disobedience is punished by the law, it is for the recognised offences they commit, such as disturbing the peace, trespassing, damaging property, etc. When civil disobedients directly break the law that they oppose, they engage in direct civil disobedience. On the other hand, when disobedients break a law that they do not oppose, in order to demonstrate their protest against another law or policy, they engage in indirect civil disobedience.

A variety of criticisms have been directed at the philosophy and practice of civil disobedience. Conservative schools of thought, for example, see the logical extension of civil disobedience as anarchy and the right of individuals to break any law.

Moral obligation to disobey unjust laws

Breaking the law is a complex issue that has been debated by philosophers ,activists, and legal scholars for centuries. While most people generally agree that breaking the law is wrong, there are situations where individuals may feel morally obligated to disobey certain laws that they perceive as unjust. This concept is often referred to as civil disobedience.

The idea of a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws is rooted in the belief that individuals have a duty to act according to their conscience, even if it means going against established laws or authorities. This notion has been espoused by prominent figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., who famously said, "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." King's philosophy was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi's principle of non-violent resistance, as exemplified in his quote, "An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now, the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment."

Civil disobedience is often employed as a form of political or social protest, with the goal of bringing attention to perceived injustices and advocating for change. It can take various forms, including mass demonstrations, strikes, or deliberate violations of specific laws. For example, during the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, activists engaged in sit-ins and freedom rides to challenge segregation laws, despite the risk of arrest and violence.

However, the decision to engage in civil disobedience is not taken lightly, as it involves a careful consideration of one's moral principles and the potential consequences of one's actions. As Henry David Thoreau, an influential thinker on civil disobedience, wrote, "If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth—certainly, the machine will wear out… but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law."

In conclusion, while there is a general societal expectation to abide by the law, individuals may find themselves morally obligated to disobey laws they perceive as unjust. This act of civil disobedience can be a powerful tool for social change, but it also carries risks and requires a thoughtful assessment of one's values and the potential impact on others.

The normalisation of minor crimes

Antisocial behaviour, when tolerated, can become normalised, leading to a crime wave. This is how minor crimes can become normalised over time.

For instance, prank calling may be considered a right of passage for some adolescents, but it can also be illegal and classified as harassment or disorderly conduct. Similarly, jaywalking, which refers to violating traffic laws by pedestrians, can carry a fine or be completely illegal, depending on the location. These examples show how minor crimes can become normalised and accepted by society, blurring the line between what is socially acceptable and what is illegal.

Another factor contributing to the normalisation of minor crimes is the failure to enforce the law or the perception of inconsistent law enforcement. For instance, in the case of Melbourne, Australia, the failure to crack down on serious offending led to an increase in robbery, theft, and assault rates. This suggests that effective policing and the consistent enforcement of laws are essential to deterring crime and preventing minor offences from becoming normalised.

Additionally, the normalisation of minor crimes can be influenced by societal factors such as poverty, inadequate housing, and individual factors like a lack of consequential thinking and poor school engagement and performance. Addressing these underlying factors through interventions and social programs can help prevent the normalisation of minor crimes and reduce the likelihood of further criminal behaviour.

Furthermore, the perception of certain crimes as "minor" can vary across different societies and cultures. For example, underage drinking is mostly forbidden in the United States under the National Minimum Age Drinking Act, while some other countries may have more lenient laws or cultural norms surrounding alcohol consumption by minors.

In summary, the normalisation of minor crimes can occur due to a combination of factors, including societal tolerance, ineffective law enforcement, underlying social issues, and varying cultural norms. Preventing the normalisation of minor crimes requires a multifaceted approach that addresses these factors through education, social interventions, and consistent enforcement of laws.

The perception of laws as flexible

Laws are often perceived as flexible, and this perception can vary depending on the individual's interpretation and the specific context. While some people view laws as rigid rules that must be obeyed, others see them as guidelines that can be bent or even broken under certain circumstances. This flexibility can manifest in several ways.

Firstly, the application of laws can vary based on the situation and the discretion of those enforcing them. For instance, a small hotel might not be expected to adhere to the same fire regulations as a large, luxurious hotel. The key to flexibility in a legal system often lies in the application of its rules and principles, as it is impossible to account for every contingency that arises in real-world scenarios. Thus, the interpretation and enforcement of laws may be adapted to fit the specific context.

Secondly, laws themselves can be flexible and subject to change over time. Legal systems evolve in response to shifts in social norms and commercial activities. For example, laws regarding civil rights, such as those prohibiting discrimination in voting and employment, have evolved to promote social justice. This evolution demonstrates the adaptability of laws to meet the changing needs and values of society.

Additionally, the perception of laws as flexible can be influenced by individual experiences and perspectives. Some people may unintentionally break the law without realizing it, as legal intricacies can be complex and challenging to navigate. For instance, activities like prank calling, using unsecured WiFi, or throwing away mail belonging to previous tenants may be illegal in certain jurisdictions. However, individuals may engage in these behaviours without understanding their legal implications.

Furthermore, the perception of laws as flexible can be shaped by personal beliefs and values. In cases of civil disobedience, individuals or groups may intentionally break the law to advocate for social or political change. They may view the law as unjust or immoral and feel compelled to take action, even if it means breaking the law. This was evident during the civil rights movement in the United States, where activists engaged in acts of civil disobedience to challenge discriminatory laws.

Lastly, the flexibility of laws can also be influenced by cultural and societal factors. What is considered acceptable or unacceptable behaviour can vary across different societies and time periods. For example, social norms around drug and alcohol abuse may shape the creation and enforcement of laws related to these issues.

In conclusion, the perception of laws as flexible is multifaceted and subject to individual interpretation, societal influences, and the evolving nature of legal systems. While laws provide a framework for conduct, their application and enforcement can vary, and they are subject to change as societies progress and values shift.

Frequently asked questions