Breaking Or Changing The Law: Who Decides?

Breaking the law is a complex issue that has sparked debates and raised questions about the limits of individual freedom and the role of government in society. While some argue that breaking the law is unacceptable under any circumstances, others believe that there are times when civil disobedience or protesting against immoral laws is justified. The average person commits around seven crimes per week, from speeding to downloading music illegally, and many are unaware that their actions are considered illegal. With the potential for harsh consequences, including litigation and incarceration, education about the law is vital to prevent unintentional law-breaking. However, in some cases, people may knowingly break the law to challenge unjust laws or spark social change, as seen in historical examples like Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her bus seat and the burning of passbooks in apartheid South Africa. The effectiveness of these actions depends on whether they ultimately lead to positive change or alienate potential supporters.

Civil disobedience and unjust laws

Civil disobedience is a public, non-violent, and conscientious breach of law undertaken to bring about a change in laws or government policies. It is often regarded as a crucial tool for bending the arc of the moral universe toward justice. The concept, widely credited to Henry David Thoreau, involves deliberately breaking an unjust law while maintaining respect for the legal system and being willing to accept the legal consequences.

The effectiveness of civil disobedience lies in its ability to communicate a message of reform or redress to the majority. It is a symbolic act of protest that contributes to the public sphere and appeals to the majority's sense of justice. Thoreau, for instance, refused to pay his state poll tax as a protest against slavery, the extermination of Native Americans, and the war against Mexico. Similarly, Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in 1955 sparked a decade-long campaign of civil disobedience against racial segregation.

Civil disobedience is distinguished from other forms of protest, such as legal protest, which operates within the bounds of the law, and revolutionary action, which seeks to overthrow the regime. It sits at the boundary of fidelity to law, reflecting a general respect for the regime while deliberately breaking specific unjust laws.

For an act to be considered civil disobedience, it must be deliberate, principled, and conscientious. It cannot be unintentional or motivated by self-interest. The agent must sincerely intend to protest laws, policies, institutions, or practices that they believe are unjust based on moral or political commitments.

Civil disobedience also requires public communication and non-violence. The act must be public to effectively convey its message and appeal to shared principles of justice. While non-violence is typically seen as essential to maintaining the civility of civil disobedience, some scholars argue that certain forms of violence, such as self-directed violence or property damage, can be compatible with the communicative nature of civil disobedience.

Finally, civil disobedience often involves accepting the legal consequences of one's actions. By willingly submitting to arrest and prosecution, civil disobedients demonstrate their respect for the legal system and their intense concern over the issue at hand. However, this does not imply a moral duty to accept punishment, and the state may choose to respond with leniency, particularly in democratic societies.

Education about the law

In the United States, education law addresses several key areas. Firstly, it ensures equal access to quality education for all children, regardless of their background. Laws such as the Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974 prohibit states from denying educational opportunities based on race, colour, sex, or national origin. This legal framework promotes inclusivity and aims to bridge educational gaps within the country.

Secondly, education law in the US recognises the importance of special education. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees that students with disabilities have access to an education that prepares them for employment and independent living. This legislation ensures that the special needs of these students are evaluated and addressed through individualised education programs. Additionally, laws like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protect the privacy of student records, ensuring that personal information remains confidential.

Another critical aspect of education law is student discipline. While teachers and administrators have the authority to maintain discipline in schools, education law safeguards students' due process rights. For instance, schools cannot expel a student without providing them with an opportunity to explain their side of the story. This legal protection ensures fairness and prevents arbitrary disciplinary actions.

Furthermore, education law addresses issues of bullying and harassment in schools. Students have the right to a safe learning environment, and schools are responsible for taking proactive steps to prevent and address any incidents of bullying or harassment. This includes dealing with the impact of technology, such as mobile phones and social media, which have amplified the reach and impact of bullying.

Lastly, education law intersects with civil rights. For example, Title IX, an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools and educational programs receiving federal funding. This law ensures that educational institutions maintain a safe and equitable environment for all students, regardless of gender.

In conclusion, education about the law is essential for fostering a well-informed citizenry that understands their legal rights and obligations. Education law, in particular, safeguards access to education, protects the rights of students, and ensures the smooth functioning of educational institutions. By providing a legal framework for education, societies can strive for greater equality, inclusivity, and overall improvement in the quality of education.

Law enforcement and corruption

Police corruption is a breach of the public trust and a violation of human rights, as officers involved may engage in bribery, theft, sexual assault, discrimination, or even participate in organized crime themselves. This type of corruption can occur individually or in groups, and its impact is far-reaching. For instance, in the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) works tirelessly to defend individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws. They have tackled cases of police corruption, such as officers planting drugs on innocent residents, to strengthen the relationship between law enforcement agencies and their communities.

Police corruption can take many forms, and one of the most common is bribery. Officers may solicit or accept bribes to turn a blind eye to illegal activities, such as organized drug rings or prostitution. Bribes may also grant access to proprietary law enforcement databases or systems. Another form of corruption is the flouting of police codes of conduct to secure convictions of civilians and suspects, including the use of falsified evidence. In some cases, law enforcement officers may even participate in organized crime themselves.

Internal affairs sections within police departments are responsible for investigating suspected corruption or misconduct. However, it is not uncommon for these internal affairs units to hide departmental and individual corruption, fraud, abuse, and waste. This cover-up culture further erodes public trust and makes it challenging to hold corrupt officers accountable.

To combat police corruption, various measures can be implemented. These include increasing transparency and accountability in law enforcement agencies, ensuring legitimate and honest enforcement of the law, and providing training to promote ethical behavior and decision-making. Additionally, independent bodies or watchdogs can be established to monitor and investigate allegations of police corruption, providing an external check on law enforcement agencies.

In conclusion, law enforcement and corruption are inherently linked, and the abuse of power by law enforcement officers has severe consequences for society. While most officers uphold their duties with integrity, those who engage in corruption must be held accountable to preserve the public's trust in the criminal justice system.

The role of human emotions and behaviour

Human emotions and behaviour play a significant role in the ongoing debate surrounding whether people should continue to break the law or change it.

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge the impact of emotions on human behaviour when it comes to breaking the law. People may be driven to break the law due to strong emotions such as anger, frustration, or a sense of injustice. For example, in the case of Rosa Parks, her refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger was an act of defiance against racial segregation laws that she felt were unjust. Strong emotions can lead to impulsive decisions to break the law, without considering the potential consequences.

On the other hand, fear of the consequences of breaking the law can also influence human behaviour. People may be aware of the potential penalties, such as fines, prison sentences, or social repercussions, and choose to abide by the law out of fear. The severity of these consequences can vary greatly, and some individuals may be more willing to face them than others. For instance, the climate campaigners from Insulate Britain accepted the risk of prison sentences as they believed that their cause to address climate change was more important.

Additionally, human behaviour can be influenced by a person's understanding and perception of the law. A lack of legal knowledge can lead to unintentional law-breaking. Many people are unaware of the specifics of certain laws or the consequences of breaking them. Educating individuals about the law and its implications can help reduce unintentional law-breaking and encourage lawful behaviour.

Moreover, human behaviour is also shaped by an individual's personal values and beliefs. People may choose to break the law if they strongly disagree with it or believe that it is immoral or unjust. For example, in South Africa under apartheid, the Black majority protested against the passbook laws, which denied them basic human rights. They felt that the need to fight for their freedom and equality outweighed the importance of upholding those particular laws.

Lastly, human behaviour can be influenced by the behaviour of others. When individuals witness others breaking the law and facing no consequences, it can create a sense of impunity and encourage similar behaviour. This can lead to a breakdown of respect for the law and potentially result in increased lawlessness.

In conclusion, human emotions and behaviour are intricately linked to the debate surrounding whether people should continue to break the law or change it. Emotions can drive people to act impulsively, while fear of consequences may deter some from breaking the law. A person's understanding of the law, personal values, and the influence of others also play a significant role in shaping their behaviour.

Law-breaking as a symptom of a larger problem

Law-breaking can be a symptom of a larger problem, such as systemic injustice or a failure of democratic processes. When legal avenues for redress are inadequate or inaccessible, individuals may feel compelled to break the law to seek change or uphold their moral principles. This was evident during the civil rights movement in the United States, where African Americans and their allies engaged in acts of civil disobedience to protest racial segregation and inequality. Similarly, in apartheid South Africa, the Black majority publicly burned their passbooks, which restricted their movement and rights, despite this being against the law.

In a democracy, the rule of law is considered fundamental to maintaining order and protecting citizens' rights. However, when the law itself becomes a tool of oppression or fails to address pressing issues, law-breaking can be a form of resistance or a call for change. For example, in the case of apartheid South Africa, the Black majority was systematically excluded from political participation and had no legal means to challenge the passbook laws. In such situations, law-breaking can be seen as a symptom of a deeper problem, indicating a breakdown in the social contract between the government and its people.

Another example is the women's rights movement in the Republic of Ireland in 1971, where feminist campaigners broke the law by importing contraceptives from Northern Ireland to highlight the absurdity of the law prohibiting contraception. Their act of civil disobedience drew attention to the issue and sparked conversations about the role of the Catholic Church in shaping legislation.

In some cases, law-breaking can be a strategic choice to bring attention to a cause or emergency. For instance, climate activists from Insulate Britain blocked exits on the M25 motorway to raise awareness about the climate crisis. While their actions caused disruption, they argued that the threat of climate change justified their law-breaking.

However, the effectiveness of law-breaking as a tactic depends on various factors, including the severity of the issue, the availability of legal alternatives, and the potential for violence or disorder. Law-breaking can be a risky strategy, as it may alienate potential supporters or lead to negative consequences for the individuals involved.

In conclusion, law-breaking can be a symptom of a larger problem when legal avenues for change are insufficient or inaccessible. While it may be a risky strategy, it has been employed throughout history by individuals and groups seeking to address systemic injustices or bring attention to pressing issues.

Frequently asked questions