When Is Breaking The Law Justified?

Breaking the law is a common occurrence, with many people committing minor crimes on a daily basis without even realising it. From littering and jaywalking to more serious offences such as drug use and speeding, the average person commits around seven crimes per week. While some laws are well-known and widely understood, others are more obscure and unexpected, such as beeping your car horn for reasons other than warning someone of danger or stealing a plastic bag. In addition, certain actions may be legal in some places but not in others, such as prank calling or using unsecured WiFi. So, are there ever exceptions to breaking the law? Is it ever justifiable to disobey the law?

Civil disobedience

The concept of civil disobedience has been around for a long time, with an early depiction of it found in Sophocles' play Antigone, where Antigone defies Creon, the King of Thebes, who is trying to stop her from giving her brother a proper burial. More recently, civil disobedience has been used by prominent activists such as Susan B. Anthony, Saad Zaghloul, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr.

There are various forms of civil disobedience, including peaceful protests, nonviolent resistance, boycotts, illegal boycotts, refusal to pay taxes, and sit-ins. Civil disobedience can be direct, which involves protesting a law by breaking that law, or indirect, which involves breaking a different law to protest another law or policy.

While civil disobedience is not always justifiable in court, some theorists argue that there is a moral right to civil disobedience, especially when there is a serious and long-standing injustice. However, civil disobedience can also be seen as a threat to the legal and democratic order, as it puts the individual above the law.

Overall, civil disobedience is a complex and controversial topic that has played a crucial role in shaping societies and governments throughout history.

Ignorance of the law

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In other words, a law can only bind when it is reasonably possible for those to whom it applies to acquire knowledge of it.

However, there are some exceptions to this rule. In criminal law, ignorance of the law may be considered in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with possession of gambling devices after being advised by customs officials that it was legal to import them into Canada. Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge.

In addition, there have been cases, particularly before satellite communication and cellular phones, where people could genuinely be ignorant of the law due to distance or isolation. For example, in a case in British Columbia, four hunters were acquitted of game offences because the law had been changed while they were hunting in the wilderness.

Furthermore, a mistake of fact may be a defence, depending on the circumstances. This is where the defendant had a false but sincerely held belief in a factual state of affairs, which, had it been the case, would have made their conduct innocent.

Moral obligation to break the law

The question of whether individuals have a moral obligation to break the law has been a subject of debate for centuries, dating back to Socrates. It is a complex issue that involves the examination of personal morality, civic duty, and the nature of government. While some argue that breaking the law is never justifiable, others contend that there are circumstances where civil disobedience becomes a moral duty.

One perspective holds that disobedience to the law is never justified, claiming that doing so always results in a greater wrong. However, this view is often challenged by pointing out that many historical acts of civil disobedience, such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence, were necessary to uphold moral principles. This gives rise to the belief that there are times when breaking an unjust law becomes a moral obligation.

In a democratic society, the argument against civil disobedience is stronger due to the availability of legal avenues for addressing grievances. However, this argument assumes that the democratic system is functioning as intended, which may not always be the case. There are situations where legal channels are inadequate or biased, and the majority's complacent acceptance of unjust laws can erode the minority's faith in democratic processes.

Civil disobedience can be a powerful tool for minorities to draw attention to their cause and challenge the majority's commitment to upholding an unjust status quo. It can also be a matter of urgency, where waiting for slow legal processes to take effect may cause irreparable harm. Additionally, disobedience to bad laws can sometimes stimulate democratic processes and strengthen faith in democratic methods.

However, civil disobedience is not without its limitations. It must be proportional to the importance of the end goal and should not incite violence or disrespect for the law in general. The cause must be just, and there should be a careful consideration of the potential consequences.

Ultimately, the decision to break the law rests on an individual's moral judgment, and they must be prepared to take responsibility for their actions. Civil disobedience, when justified, indicates a deeper problem within a society. While it may not always be condoned, it serves as a reminder that both those who obey and break the law have a duty to examine the morality and rationality of their society's laws and social arrangements.

Common illegal activities

While there are many different kinds of crimes, criminal acts can be divided into five primary categories: crimes against a person, crimes against property, inchoate crimes, statutory crimes, and financial crimes.

Crimes Against a Person

Crimes against a person are those that result in physical or mental harm to another person. They can be divided into two main categories: forms of homicide and other violent crimes. Rape and statutory rape are examples of violent crimes.

Crimes Against Property

Crimes against property involve interference with the property of another party. They may involve physical or mental harm to another, but they primarily result in the deprivation of the use or enjoyment of property. Many property crimes are theft crimes, including burglary, larceny, robbery, auto theft, and shoplifting.

Inchoate Crimes

Inchoate crimes refer to those crimes that were initiated but not completed, and acts that assist in the commission of another crime. Inchoate crimes include aiding and abetting, attempt, and conspiracy.

Statutory Crimes

Statutory crimes are those that are specifically prohibited by statute because society hopes to deter individuals from engaging in them. They include alcohol-related crimes, drug crimes, traffic offenses, and financial/white-collar crimes.

Financial and Other Crimes

Financial crimes often involve deception or fraud for financial gain. Anyone in any industry can commit a white-collar crime. These crimes include fraud, blackmail, embezzlement, money laundering, tax evasion, and cybercrime.

Other Common Illegal Activities

In addition to the categories listed above, there are other common ways in which people break the law, including:

• Prank calling
• Using unsecured WiFi
• Throwing out mail belonging to previous tenants
• Failure to update your driver's license when you move to a new state
• Failure to get a dog license for your pet
• Jaywalking
• Copyright infringement
• Gambling
• Littering
• Sharing prescribed medication
• Underage drinking
• Possession and/or use of marijuana and cannabis products
• Breaking traffic laws by speeding, driving without a seatbelt, or using a cell phone while driving
• Beeping your horn for anything other than to warn someone of danger
• Applying makeup while driving
• Watching TV without a license
• Funding a Nigerian Prince
• Having sex in public
• Not cleaning up your dog's poop
• Cycling on the pavement
• Bringing fruit and vegetables home from abroad
• Using your phone while driving

Legal consequences of breaking the law

Breaking the law can have a range of legal consequences, and these differ depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the crime committed. In the US, most crimes are state crimes, and criminal laws and procedures vary from state to state. However, some acts, such as copyright infringement, are federal crimes.

When minors break the law, they usually appear in juvenile court, where a judge hears the evidence and decides on the sentence. This could include probation, placement in a foster home, or, in serious cases, time in a juvenile institution.

For adults, the process is more complex and typically begins with an arrest. In the federal system and some states, a grand jury decides whether there is enough evidence for a trial. If there is, the person is indicted and the case goes to trial, where the defendant is guaranteed certain rights by the Constitution. If found guilty, the defendant is convicted and sentenced. The sentence could include a fine, incarceration, probation, or, in some states, the death penalty.

Outside of the criminal justice system, there are other legal consequences for breaking the law. For example, organizations that violate safety standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) may face fines or even imprisonment for individuals responsible. Violations of wage laws, such as failure to pay the minimum wage or overtime, can result in investigations by the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division and punishments such as back pay and back wages. Copyright, trademark, and patent infringement can lead to monetary penalties, injunctions, and, in severe cases, jail time.

Frequently asked questions