When Is Breaking The Law Justified?

Breaking the law is a complex and multifaceted topic that has sparked debates and raised philosophical questions throughout history. While some argue that upholding the rule of law is essential for a civilized society, others contend that there are circumstances where breaking the law may be justified. The relationship between ethics and law is intricate, and individuals often find themselves grappling with moral dilemmas that challenge their adherence to legal frameworks. From historical acts of civil disobedience in the fight for racial equality to contemporary protests against climate change, the question of whether breaking the law is acceptable remains a subject of ongoing discussion and deliberation.

Civil disobedience and the fight for racial equality

Civil disobedience has been a powerful tool in the fight for racial equality, particularly during the Civil Rights Movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. This movement sought to secure equal rights under the law for Black Americans and to end racial segregation and discrimination, which persisted despite the abolition of slavery.

One notable example of civil disobedience during this period was the Montgomery Bus Boycott, sparked by Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat to a white passenger in 1955. Parks' courageous act of defiance against segregation laws inspired a year-long boycott of the Montgomery bus system, led by the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) and its leader, Martin Luther King Jr. The boycott ultimately led to a Supreme Court ruling that segregated seating on buses was unconstitutional.

Another form of civil disobedience employed by civil rights activists was the sit-in. In 1960, four college students in Greensboro, North Carolina, refused to leave a Woolworth's lunch counter without being served, sparking the Greensboro sit-ins. Hundreds of people joined their cause, and their efforts led to the desegregation of lunch counters and the formation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) to encourage student involvement in the civil rights movement.

The Freedom Rides of 1961 also utilised civil disobedience to challenge segregated bus terminals in the South. "Freedom Riders" faced violence and beatings from police and white protesters, but their actions drew international attention to the issue of segregation and led to changes in interstate transit regulations.

In addition to these acts of civil disobedience, the Civil Rights Movement employed a range of other tactics, including marches, boycotts, "freedom rides", and lobbying government officials for legislative change. The movement achieved significant successes, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in public accommodations, education, and employment.

While breaking the law is generally unacceptable, civil disobedience has been a powerful tool in the fight for racial equality, challenging unjust laws and sparking social change.

Ethics and the law

The relationship between ethics and the law is complex. Some argue that ethics and law are one and the same, with state laws derived from divine law or religious commandments. However, this view is dangerous as it assumes that laws are inspired by God or a higher wisdom, which is rarely the case. Laws are made by fallible humans who can make mistakes, be influenced by special interests, or serve particular groups. Therefore, it is crucial to question and critically examine laws as they are not always morally right.

There are situations where breaking the law may be ethically justified. For example, in cases of civil disobedience, individuals or groups may break the law to protest or fight against unjust laws or social issues, such as racial segregation or climate change. In such cases, breaking the law can be seen as a form of direct action to draw attention to a cause or spark change. However, civil disobedience can also have negative consequences, such as causing inconvenience or alienating potential supporters.

Additionally, individuals are faced with moral dilemmas where they must decide between following the law and acting ethically. For instance, saving a child from running into a busy street would be morally right but illegal if it involved ignoring a red traffic light. In such situations, individuals must weigh the importance of adhering to the law against the potential consequences of their actions.

Ultimately, the decision to break the law involves a complex interplay between ethical principles, personal beliefs, and the legal framework. While there may be situations where breaking the law is ethically justified, it is essential to consider the potential risks, impacts, and consequences of such actions.

The law in democratic societies

The relationship between the rule of law and democracy is complex and multifaceted. While some argue that the two are in opposition, with the rule of law constraining democratic decision-making, others view them as interdependent and mutually reinforcing.

The Rule of Law as a Constraint on Government

The dominant perspective on the rule of law sees it as a limitation on the power of the government, applying equally to democratic and undemocratic regimes. In this view, the courts are the primary institution responsible for enforcing these limits. However, this perspective has been criticised for oversimplifying the relationship between democracy and the rule of law and failing to recognise their interdependence.

The Interdependence of the Rule of Law and Democracy

Democracy and the rule of law are often seen as complementary and mutually supportive. Democracy requires the rule of law to ensure free and fair decision-making processes, while the rule of law relies on democratic institutions for its legitimacy and effective implementation.

The rule of law supports democracy by providing a framework that enables citizens to exercise their freedoms and participate effectively in political processes. It ensures that collective decisions are made through established procedures and are implemented with integrity. Additionally, democratic institutions facilitate the rule of law by providing oversight, accountability, and transparency in the application of laws.

Furthermore, democratic decision-making processes contribute to the generality of laws by reflecting the diverse perspectives and interests of citizens. This helps to ensure that laws are just and serve the public interest rather than private inclinations.

In democratic societies, the rule of law and democracy are intertwined. While the rule of law sets boundaries and provides a framework, democratic institutions and processes give it substance and ensure its effectiveness. Together, they create a system of governance that respects individual rights, fosters participation, and promotes just outcomes.

When breaking the law is justifiable

Breaking the law is a complex issue that has been debated throughout history, and there are several circumstances in which breaking the law can be justifiable.

Firstly, it is essential to recognise that ethics and laws are distinct systems, each serving a different purpose. Laws are created by governing bodies, such as parliaments, and are subject to human fallibility and influence from various factors. On the other hand, ethics are derived from personal beliefs, societal norms, and philosophical theories. As a result, certain laws may feel unjust or favour specific groups, leading to the question of whether individuals have a right or duty to disobey laws that conflict with their moral conscience.

One scenario where breaking the law can be justifiable is when a law is fundamentally immoral or violates basic human rights, as seen during apartheid in South Africa. In such cases, if legal avenues for change are unavailable or ineffective, direct action through civil disobedience can be a powerful tool to spark change. For example, Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on a bus contributed to the civil rights movement in the United States, challenging racial segregation laws.

Additionally, breaking the law can be justifiable when it is necessary to prevent harm or protect someone's life. For instance, ignoring a red traffic light to save a child from running into a busy street is an illegal action but a moral imperative. Similarly, during World War II, helping Jewish citizens in Nazi Germany broke the law but was a morally right action.

Furthermore, when legal alternatives are insufficient or biased, breaking the law can be a way to seek justice. This was evident in the case of the 1971 feminist campaigners in the Republic of Ireland, who imported contraceptives from Northern Ireland to protest the Catholic Church's influence on contraception laws. Their actions were illegal but symbolically highlighted the law's absurdity.

However, it is crucial to approach law-breaking with caution. Civil disobedience should be a last resort, considered only when legal methods have been exhausted or are inadequate. Additionally, the benefits of breaking the law must outweigh the potential harms, including the risk of alienating supporters and inciting violence.

In conclusion, while respecting the rule of law is essential for a civilised society, there are exceptional circumstances where breaking the law can be justifiable. These include defending human rights, preventing harm, and seeking justice when legal avenues are insufficient. However, such actions should be carefully evaluated, considering the potential consequences and the gravity of the issue at hand.

The consequences of breaking the law

Breaking the law can have a multitude of consequences, and it is important to understand the weight of these consequences as they serve as a deterrent to criminal behaviour. The legal ramifications of unlawful actions can vary depending on the severity of the crime, the jurisdiction in which it was committed, and the circumstances surrounding the case. These consequences can range from minor fines to long-term imprisonment, each affecting a person's life differently.

For instance, a minor crime, such as a traffic violation, may result in a small fine, while a more serious offence, such as robbery or murder, can lead to a lengthy prison sentence. In addition to fines and imprisonment, legal consequences can include community service, probation, restitution to the victim, and other penalties like the loss of specific privileges or a criminal record.

The impact of breaking the law extends beyond legal repercussions. A person convicted of a crime may face challenges in their personal and professional lives, such as difficulty in finding employment or housing, and may encounter social stigma and discrimination due to their criminal record. These consequences can have long-term effects, influencing a person's opportunities and social standing for years to come.

Furthermore, the principle of civil disobedience comes into play when discussing the consequences of breaking the law. Throughout history, there have been instances where individuals or groups have deliberately broken unjust laws to spark change, as seen in the civil rights movements in the United States and South Africa. In such cases, the breaking of the law becomes a symbolic act of protest, often accompanied by the willingness to accept the legal consequences, including imprisonment.

In conclusion, the consequences of breaking the law are far-reaching and significant. They serve as a deterrent, hold individuals accountable, and maintain social order. While there may be exceptional cases where breaking the law is deemed justifiable, the weight of the potential consequences underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law as a fundamental basis of a civilised society.

Frequently asked questions