The Thrill Of Lawbreaking: A Dangerous Adventure

Breaking the law is a topic that has been widely discussed and debated, with a long history dating back to ancient philosophers like Socrates. It raises fundamental moral and ethical questions about the role of the individual, their conscience, and their obligations to society and the state. While some laws are well-known and established, such as those prohibiting murder or theft, other laws may be lesser-known or unexpected, such as the illegality of prank calling or failure to update one's driver's license when moving to a new state. Breaking the law can take many forms, from civil disobedience in the pursuit of social justice to unintentional infractions due to ignorance or misunderstanding. The consequences of breaking the law can also vary widely, from fines to jail time, and even capital punishment in some jurisdictions. The concept of breaking the law itself is intriguing, as it refers to the abstract notion of violating an unspecified rule or the entire legal framework, rather than a specific law. This phrase, breaking the law, first appeared in 1564, and has since become an established part of our linguistic landscape.

Civil disobedience

• American women's suffrage leader Susan B. Anthony in the late 19th century
• Egyptian nationalist Saad Zaghloul during the 1910s
• Indian nationalist Mahatma Gandhi in 1920s British India as part of his leadership of the Indian independence movement
• Martin Luther King Jr. and James Bevel during the 1960s civil rights movement in the US

> "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law."

• Peaceful blockades
• Illegally occupying a facility
• Boycotts
• Refusal to pay taxes
• Draft dodging
• Sit-ins

Punishment for breaking the law

Breaking the law can refer to a range of actions, from civil disobedience to criminal offences. The punishment for breaking the law will depend on the severity of the crime and the jurisdiction in which it is committed. In this article, we will explore some of the common punishments for breaking the law.

One of the most common punishments for breaking the law is imprisonment. When an individual is found guilty of a crime, they may be sentenced to a period of incarceration in a prison or correctional facility. The length of the sentence will depend on the seriousness of the offence and the criminal history of the offender. In some cases, imprisonment may be accompanied by other punishments, such as fines or community service.

Another possible punishment for breaking the law is a fine. A fine is a monetary penalty imposed by a court. The amount of the fine will vary depending on the offence and the offender's ability to pay. Fines are often used as an alternative to imprisonment for less serious offences, or they may be imposed in addition to a prison sentence for more serious crimes.

In some jurisdictions, certain crimes may carry the punishment of capital punishment. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the legal process of putting a person to death as punishment for a crime. Crimes that may result in capital punishment include murder, terrorism, and drug trafficking. However, the use of capital punishment is highly controversial and is only legal in a small number of countries.

For minors or first-time offenders, alternative punishments may be imposed instead of traditional criminal sanctions. These may include community service, probation, or participation in rehabilitation or diversion programs. The goal of these alternative punishments is to hold individuals accountable for their actions while also providing them with an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and avoid future criminal behaviour.

It is important to note that the consequences of breaking the law can extend beyond formal punishments. For example, a person's reputation, relationships, and career prospects may be negatively impacted by their criminal record. Additionally, breaking the law can result in the loss of certain rights and privileges, such as the right to vote or hold public office.

Justification for breaking the law

Breaking the law is a complex and multifaceted issue that has been debated by philosophers, legal scholars, and society at large for centuries. While there is no definitive answer to the question of whether or not breaking the law is ever justifiable, there are several perspectives and arguments that can be considered.

One perspective is that breaking the law can sometimes be justified if it is done in the name of a higher moral law or principle. For example, throughout history, there have been numerous instances of civil disobedience and social movements where individuals or groups have broken the law to fight for their rights or oppose unjust laws. From Gandhi's defiance of British colonial laws during India's independence movement to Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights movement in the United States, there are many examples of laws being broken in the pursuit of a greater moral good. In such cases, breaking the law can be seen as a necessary act of resistance or a way to bring about much-needed social change.

Another argument for justifying law-breaking is the concept of "unjust" or "bad" laws. Some critics argue that there is a duty to obey the law, even if it is unjust. However, this assumes that we, as citizens, have promised to obey the law, which is not always the case. In a democratic society, laws are meant to reflect the will of the people, but they may still be unfair or unjust to certain groups. In such cases, breaking the law can be seen as a way to challenge and change those laws for the better.

Additionally, it is important to consider the potential consequences of breaking the law. While some acts of civil disobedience may be relatively minor, such as participating in an unlawful strike or whistle-blowing, others may involve more serious offences, such as violence or property damage. The potential impact of law-breaking on society as a whole also needs to be considered. While isolated acts of disobedience may not necessarily lead to widespread chaos, they could still have unintended negative consequences.

On the other hand, it is also crucial to recognize that breaking the law can have detrimental effects on individuals, communities, and society as a whole. Laws are established to maintain order, protect citizens, and ensure fairness and justice. When individuals break the law, they risk undermining these fundamental principles and causing harm to others. In some cases, law-breaking can even lead to a breakdown of social trust and cohesion, affecting the very fabric of society.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the justification for breaking the law can be highly subjective and dependent on individual moral judgments. What one person considers a justifiable act of civil disobedience may be viewed by another as an unacceptable breach of the law. This subjectivity can lead to conflicts and disagreements within society, highlighting the complexity and nuance of this issue.

In conclusion, while there may be times when breaking the law can be justified, it is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration of various factors. It is essential to weigh the potential benefits of law-breaking against the risks and consequences, both for individuals and society as a whole. Ultimately, the decision to break the law should not be taken lightly and should be informed by a thorough understanding of the moral, legal, and societal implications involved.

Prosecution of lawbreakers

The prosecution of lawbreakers is a complex and often contentious issue, as demonstrated by the following examples.

Dominic Cummings

Under the Health Protection Regulations Act, police were given the power to instruct people violating lockdown guidelines to return home, leave an area, or disperse, with fines of £60 for non-compliance. Cummings, the UK Prime Minister's Chief Advisor, flouted these rules in March by driving to Durham to visit his parents while he and his wife exhibited Coronavirus symptoms. He then drove to Barnard Castle, claiming it was to 'test his eyesight'. Cummings did not face any fines or lose his job.

Neil Ferguson

Ferguson, a key scientific advisor to the UK government, broke social distancing rules by reportedly meeting his lover at his home. He resigned from his position.

Stephen Kinnock

Labour MP Kinnock travelled from South Wales to London in March 2020 to visit his father on his birthday, breaking lockdown laws.

The Queen

The British monarch has been pictured driving without a seatbelt and without a licence, which is a criminal offence for anyone else in the country. However, as part of the 'royal prerogative', the Queen can legally drive without a licence as they are issued in her name. She is also immune from prosecution due to sovereign immunity.

Prince Harry

Prince Harry allegedly assaulted a paparazzi photographer on two occasions, in 2004 and 2007, with the latter incident resulting in the photographer sustaining a cut lip. Harry claimed self-defence, but if charged, he could have faced a maximum sentence of five years and/or a criminal fine for actual bodily harm (ABH).

Boris Johnson

The UK Prime Minister was cleared of any criminal charges relating to an 'intimate' relationship with US businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri when he was Mayor of London. Arcuri received public funds and access to secret trade missions. While Johnson was cleared, there was evidence of a breach of the broader Nolan principles contained within the GLA 2012 Code of Conduct, which could have resulted in a criminal fine or prison time.

Jeremy Hunt

Conservative MP Jeremy Hunt breached anti-money laundering laws by failing to declare his 50% interest in a property firm. He could have faced a criminal fine or up to two years' imprisonment. However, parliamentary privilege grants MPs certain legal immunities to allow them to perform their duties without interference.

Impunity for lawbreakers

In the context of breaking the law, impunity can have severe consequences. For instance, in the United States, there is a double standard when it comes to law enforcement and government officials breaking the law. While ordinary citizens accused or convicted of crimes face harsh penalties, police officers, prosecutors, and government officials often avoid punishment for brutality and violations of civil rights. This double standard erodes trust in the justice system and undermines the principle of equality before the law.

The consequences of impunity for lawbreakers can be far-reaching and detrimental to society. It sends a message that certain individuals or groups are above the law, undermining the rule of law and eroding public trust in institutions. Furthermore, it can lead to a cycle of violence and abuse, as perpetrators are not held accountable for their actions.

To address impunity for lawbreakers, it is crucial to ensure equal enforcement of the law, regardless of an individual's position or power. This includes holding law enforcement and government officials accountable for their actions, improving oversight mechanisms, and guaranteeing access to justice and effective remedies for victims.

Additionally, it is important to recognize that breaking the law is sometimes justified in certain circumstances, such as civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws or to defend higher moral principles. However, even in these cases, the decision to break the law entails taking personal moral responsibility and carefully weighing the potential consequences.

Frequently asked questions