Kara Sears
Laws are made to be broken, or so the saying goes. But why can't we break the law? Is it because of the limitations of the law itself, or is it something to do with human emotions and behaviour? Breaking the law is a trivial matter, but creating, enforcing and dealing with the consequences of lawbreaking is incredibly complicated. Laws are created to hold citizens and institutions accountable, but the individual can easily act against the group for their own benefit. So, is it ever right to break the law? Some argue that it can be right to break the law in order to eliminate inequalities based on race, for example. However, others argue that breaking the law can never be justified, as this would suggest that every law is a just law, which is plainly false.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Laws are made by humans | Humans can choose not to follow them |
| Laws are fragile | They are easily broken |
| Laws are complicated to create | They are easy to break |
| Laws are complicated to enforce | They are easy to break |
| Laws are complicated to deal with when broken | They are easy to break |
| Laws are created by a group | Individuals can act against the group |
| Laws are created by a group | The group prevails over the individual |
| Laws are created by a group | The group is always larger than the individual |
| Laws are created by a group | The group tends to prevail over the individual |
| Laws are created by a group | There is always tension between individual goals and the goals of the group |
| Laws are created by a group | Laws are not always just |
| Laws are created by a group | Laws are not always moral |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Laws are made by humans, so they can be broken by humans
The rule of law is fundamental to an ordered society. If the government, powerful groups, or powerful individuals can break the law with impunity, then authoritarianism and civil unrest are inevitable. The rule of law relies on buy-in by a whole community; you can't effectively police people without their consent. We generally only come to recognise how fragile the rule of law is when it fails.
In an ideal world, the laws themselves are revised, but in places in the world, economics and society are imperfect, and the result is a power struggle. Sometimes it's between man and society, and sometimes it's between one society versus another. In all cases, somebody simply disagrees with the law. Thus, one might hear "rules are meant to be broken".
In the Thomistic view dominant in the Medieval period, man-made law is the lowest form of law, as a determinatio of natural law or divine positive law. In the view dominant in the modern period, man-made law is thought of as primary because it is man-made. The Soviet Union went further, not recognising any such thing as divine or natural law.
Understanding Motivations Behind Criminal Behavior
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$25.24 $38.99
Laws are difficult to enforce
Another reason laws are difficult to enforce is that they are often complicated to create and implement. This means that there may be loopholes or ambiguities that make it hard to determine whether a law has been broken. For example, in the UK, it is illegal to beep your horn for anything other than to warn someone of danger, but this does not apply to other sounds that vehicles can make.
Additionally, laws can be difficult to enforce because of the resources required for enforcement. This may include a lack of police officers or other officials to monitor and enforce the law, or a lack of technology or infrastructure to support enforcement. For example, UK customs restrictions are quite lax in comparison to other countries, which may make it difficult to enforce laws around bringing certain items into the country.
Finally, laws may be difficult to enforce because of the potential consequences of their being broken. This could include the impact on individuals or communities, as well as the potential for civil unrest or authoritarianism if the government or powerful groups are seen to be breaking the law with impunity.
Joseph Smith: A Lawbreaker or a Law-abiding Citizen?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Laws are created to benefit the group, not the individual
Laws are created to protect our general safety and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, organisations, and the government itself. For example, in the United States, the framers of the Constitution agreed on the following basic principles: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a Perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
However, it is a trivial matter to break the law. For example, in the UK, you can beep your horn for anything other than to warn someone of danger, or make any other sound with your vehicle between 11:30 pm and 07:00 am on a 30mph road. Twenty percent of people surveyed don't believe what they do is illegal because "everyone else does it". Fifty-eight percent view breaking the law as "OK" if the crimes are minor.
The rule of law relies on buy-in by a whole community. We only come to recognise how fragile the rule of law is when it fails.
Trump's Illegal Immigrant Release: Breaking Laws, Creating Chaos
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Hyperdrama[2 LP]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71iFNbV3vtL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Breaking the law can never be a legal right
While it may seem trivial to break the law, the process of creating, enforcing, and dealing with the consequences of law-breaking is incredibly complex. The fragility of the rule of law becomes apparent when it fails, and we see the impact of lawlessness on society.
It is important to recognise that breaking the law is never acceptable, regardless of the perceived minor nature of the crime. A significant number of people surveyed believe that breaking the law is acceptable if "everyone else does it" or if the crimes are minor. This excuse, however, holds no weight in a court of law.
Additionally, the enforcement of laws may vary, and some laws may seem arbitrary or lax in comparison to others. For example, UK customs restrictions may seem less strict than those of other countries. Nevertheless, breaking the law, regardless of its perceived severity, remains illegal and subject to punishment.
In conclusion, breaking the law can never be a legal right. The rule of law is essential to maintaining a just and ordered society, and it is the responsibility of all citizens and institutions to uphold it. While the process of creating and enforcing laws is complex, it is necessary to ensure accountability and prevent the abuse of power.
The Ranch Roadhouse: Lawful or Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Civil disobedience can be justified to eliminate inequalities
Civil disobedience, despite its illegal nature, can sometimes be justified against the duty to obey the law. Rawls famously raised the bar for the justified use of the practice, requiring acts of civil disobedience to target serious and long-standing injustice, appeal to widely accepted principles of justice, be undertaken as a last resort, and be done in coordination with other minority groups with similar grievances.
Civil disobedience raises issues about the nature of authority, obligation, and consent in society. It originates from the idea that a person must be true to their conscience and that they are not obligated to submit to the laws or commands of the state when they violate their conception of justice. Civil disobedience assumes both a right to individual freedom and the existence of a natural law that takes precedence over civil law.
The justification for civil disobedience to eliminate inequalities is further supported by the fact that it is often a last resort for activists to protest government failures to address issues of inequality and poverty. While it may be costly and punished, civil disobedience can leverage the punitive injustice suffered to amplify its communicative force.
My Employer is Breaking the Law: What Now?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No society, whether free or tyrannical, can give its citizens the right to break its laws. To ask it to do so is to ask it to proclaim, as a matter of law, that its laws are not laws.
If you break a law, you may be punished. The punishment will depend on the severity of the crime and the jurisdiction in which it was committed.
This is a complex moral question that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. Some argue that disobedience to the law can never be justified, while others believe that there may be rare circumstances in which it is necessary to break a law in order to uphold a higher moral principle, such as eliminating inequalities based on race.
