American history is full of instances when Americans have broken laws that they felt were unjust or wrong-headed. From the Boston Tea Party, to the Revolution, to the Civil War, to the Civil Rights Movement, to the current Occupy Wall Street movement, Americans have consciously broken laws as acts of defiance. When and how is it aapropriate to break the law (if ever)?
The quality of your contributions to this discussion can earn you bonus points on your most recent test. Be sure to "sign" your name to each of your comments and do respond to each other's comments. This discussion will last for one week.
The quality of your contributions to this discussion can earn you bonus points on your most recent test. Be sure to "sign" your name to each of your comments and do respond to each other's comments. This discussion will last for one week.
Breaking the law is necessary in all cases which a person feels the law is encroaching and violating his or her rights and beliefs. Too often we do not stand up for what we believe in and conform with the masses. In democratic societies like ours, bending the limits is vital to expressing individuality. In my opinion, nonviolence (similar Gandhi’s model) should be practiced because nonviolence is a way to show opposition while protecting the lives of many. The law might be printed on parchment but it definitely is not binding like handcuffs. I echo existentialism when I say we all have free will to break the law, and at the same time, we must be responsible to face repercussions. We should not be surprised of our punishment because we stood up for what is right. For example, while I do not believe all measures should be resolved like the Boston Tea Party, I do believe the Sons of Liberty had the right to stand up for their beliefs in a nonviolent manner by disposing of the tea trunks overseas. However, all the colonists ended up suffering from their behavior.-Braham Berg
ReplyDeleteBraham is right if a person feels their government is definetly effecting their natural rights then this person has a right to break the law. A person must be positive they cannot just dislike the government, the president or certain laws. A example would be a marijuana smoker who thinks its not a bad drug, that is not a good reason. If a person has facts and prove that their government is not only hurting them but others because of certain laws the said person can break the law.
ReplyDelete- John Marchisello
It is appropriate to the break the law only when a person feels that their rights as citizens have been violated. If the government ever jailed someone for being critical of the government, that is grounds for breaking the law via revolting. The people of the United States have rights and if any single one of them are violated in any way, that's when it is appropriate to break the law. It's a two way agreement, and if one side doesn't play fair, its excused for the other to do the same. In terms of how one should break the law depends on how the government violated the citizens rights. If the government was just mindlessly throwing taxes at the people just so they could extort money out of them for their own personal use, then an active, possibly violent protest would be okay in order to get the leader thrown out of office. However, if the crime by the government isn't so harsh, then there should be peaceful protest. Peaceful protest would be the ideal option for the people revolting, in terms of their safety, but peaceful protest isn't always sending a strong enough message, and that is when the people should resort to violence.
ReplyDelete-William Dunn
I think proper judgement has to be used and not just join those who break the law to simply be part of the bandwagon. Unless your liberties as an individual are threatened, whether it's by the government then there shouldn't really be a reason to break the law. Great examples of this are the right to vote, work, and own property as we have seen several times in history to even now a days with strikes. Some factors such as beliefs and life are the most basic that anyone under almost any situation of having these two things threatened, breaking the law to defend them would be the initial response. People ask is alright to kill some one? No it is not but how many people would stand by and not defend themselves? The same goes for belief, people react negatively when they are told they can't believe in something, especially God or are marginalized because of their beliefs. However, even with all of this taken into account, breaking the law is pretty bold and extreme. I'm sure protesting or going on strikes aren't really breaking the law and get the point across affectively. -Issa Sylla
ReplyDeleteI believe it is appropriate to break the law, especially in the cases you described such as the Boston Tea Party or the Civil Rights Movement. These examples ultimately help portray a strong message to the state, that come in times of corruption, weak authority, outrageous government belief and disagreement between the government and people, that things need to change. For instance, the members of the Boston Tea Party sent a strong message to the parliamentary officials in England simply inferring that "were not gonna take your shit", by dumping the taxed tea in to the ocean, this event had a large impact on colonial society, because we still study its strong influence nearly 250 years later. The Civil Rights Movement illustrated a fight for black people in the United States fight to gain their individual rights, a topic, mostly associated with the breaking of a law. I think that someone whether it be the criminal or the government, may always learn something valuable from the violation of a law. It could teach a valuable lesson to the offender to make better decisions, or serve as a awakening for political demand of the people in the government. -Jake DeFonzo
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to breaking the law and court related events, how come a suspect is tried even though he is the offender? Or if two people go to court, it isnt about who did it but more on who has the better defense? Issa Sylla.
ReplyDeleteLaws are presented in society as a guideline and as a means of keeping order. Laws are, at times, manipulated or simply unjust, in which case it would be appropriate for people to break these laws. I believe that the manner in which these laws are broken should be nonviolent. There have been many instances in which nonviolent protests have been more effective than violent ones, such as the actions of Martin Luther King Jr. vs those of Malcolm X. The practice of nonviolent protest also prevents the opposition, those on the side of the law, from justifying any of their violent actions towards any of the protestors. As mentioned before, there may be times in which violent protest are more effective than peaceful protest; however in most, if not all, cases of violent protests violence creates more violence.
ReplyDelete-Bryan Laboy
I think breaking the law is cool as long as you have a good reason to do it. for example, in a case where someone's civil liberties are being impinged upon, he or she should take it upon himself or herself to stand up for himself or herself. That was worded very awkwardly. What I am trying to say is, if you feel that you are being put down by a law that may be unconstitutional, such as the laws against same-sex marriage, you need to take it upon yourself to either start or join a movement against said law; otherwise, the government will continue to put you down, not necessarily out of spite, but usually ignorance, as they do not realize that such a large ammount of people are being put down by their decision. -PETER ABRAHAMSEN NJ (y)
ReplyDeleteSee peter is the kid i was talking about who makes up any reason to break the law in this case its "cool", haha .
ReplyDelete-John Marchisello
Breaking the law is necessary sometimes because certain circumstances force you to do what's in the best interest of your family or yourself. Most of the time, the laws broken are laws which were unjust to begin with and didn't necessarily prevent or protect anything. For example, now with the occupy wall street situation, the newspapers and media sources are saying how the protesters are breaking some laws, when all they are doing is peacefully protesting.
ReplyDelete-Greg Clerie
It is appropriate to break the law when as citizens you feel that your rights are being abused. Sometimes in government the representatives make decisions which some people feel are unfair and take it upon themselves to speak out against it. Breaking the law because other people are doing it makes no sense because if you don't get anything out of it there is absolutely no point. Examples of when people broke the law in American history would be when taxes came about such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp act because most Americans took it upon themselves to smuggle these good and to boycott British goods as well. The Americans felt these taxes were completely unfair and therefore broke the law to alleviate the situation at stake. Breaking the law resulted in serious consequences and if you couldn't handle these consequences there was absolutely no reason for trying. The Boston Tea party was another solid example of breaking the law because the citizens didn't like the tax on tea and decided to dump whatever they had into the Boston harbor. As always consequences came about and the Boston harbor was closed. There are different situations which call for riots and depending on how serious the situation is makes it harder to get away with crime.
ReplyDelete-Peter Pellegrini
I agree and disagree that breaking the law is necessary when someone feels that it is unjust or wrong. Bryan Laboy brings an excellent point that "a law is a guideline to keep order". If it is to keep order then why break that law? The law should encourage us not to protest against it and encourage us not to break it. Of course there might be someone who is against that law and feels that it is unjust. However, there are millions of other people that might not feel the law is unjust. That is one to a million, so why should that one person protest and break a law that is unjust to him or her? It is more appropriate to go against a law that affects a thousand people instead of one person. The Declaration of Independence states, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The Declaration of Independence is saying that if the government is taking away our natural rights, we have the right to over throw the government. I agree with the Declaration of Independence saying that we can revolt, but a person should only revolt if it is affecting a majority of people. However, I disagree that by revolting you should take the life of another. I am not disagreeing against the American Revolution, but the laws were affecting a united colony and they had a right to fight. In other words we were trying to protect our rights that would help us in future generations. However, now it is against the law to overthrow the government by force. The government had ordered that sedition is illegal. Sedition is a crime saying that any rebellion against the government is illegal. I truthfully believe that if a majority of the people in the United States came up with a good reason and were being hurt or persecuted by the government than they have a right to overthrow the government and break the law of sedition. If the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence saying that we have the right to overthrow our government, I believe that we should still have that right.
ReplyDelete-Jack Profaci
All of these comments make a lot of sense. We have all basically come to a consensus that breaking a law is okay, even right, when the law is oppressive and taking away important liberties that American citizens should have and enjoy. Jack brings up a fantastic point, however. I caution everyone, like Peter Abrahamsen and Greg, to basically say that breaking a law is fine as long as one has a "good" reason to. Anyone can come up with a "good" reason to break a law; it's a matter of opinion. For example, someone can justify stealing a car and selling it by saying that he or she is poor and needs the money desperately. While this is a "good" reason to the person stealing, the rights of the person being stolen from are being infringed. Yet, I disagree with Jack when he says that a law has to oppress a large number of people in order to be wrong and unjust. For example, if Congress passed a law stating that Mr. Joseph Sweeney who teaches at Xavier High School must go to jail tomorrow, not many people would be oppressed, but it would most definitely be wrong, and Mr. Sweeney's rights as an American citizen would be taken away. It's an extremely complex topic that has many different points and sides to it.
ReplyDeleteOf course there are times that it is okay to break the law. People have done it for ages! Laws were established by humans, and after all, humans do make errors and mistakes. Laws that people find unfair will be broken at some point. Rose Parks broke the law during the civil rights movement when she decided to take a seat in the white section of a bus. Of course, she got arrested, but her actions helped shape peoples opinion on segregation and her actions became one of the greatest contributors to the civil rights movement. Standing up against a law that one feels is unfair is one of the ways people have gotten cruel laws to become changed. So yes, it is perfectly fine to break the law when one feels a law is either unfair or immoral.
ReplyDelete-Kevin So
I guess I kind of agree with both sides of the argument. I feel like it is okay to break the law, but unlike Braham, I do not believe the the non-violent approach is always the best way to handle it. Although it has worked in a lot of circumstances such as the Bus Boycott of 1955 and the Stamp Act Congress, I also believe that sometimes the "by any means necessary" idea can be absolutely necessary. The main reason for this is because it ends up taking a lot of time for it to happen. In both cases mentioned above it took at least a year for both of them to really have an impact on the government. Therefore, I think that violence (like the Revolutionary War) is necessary. However, regardless of the believe that violence is necessary, we should at least have our first attempt to the guidelines of the "right to protest" which is actually IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS!!! So all in all, breaking the law or revolt is okay under rare circumstances.
ReplyDelete-Ramsey Haddad
Just as another comment:
ReplyDeleteI also think that breaking the law should absolutely have some sort of concrete evidence like Marchilsello brought up. You should only revolt if it is really hurting you life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
Ramsey Haddad
I also disagree with Jack's statement that you only should revolt if the government's actions hurt the majority people. Take a look at what when Britain passed Intolerable Acts. They were mainly used to punish Massachusetts, not all 13 of the colonies. Even though Britain only punished 1 colony, the other 12 colonies thought that it was unfair, and they all eventually agreed to revolt and then the Revolutionary War ultimately occurred. I'm not saying that the Intolerable Acts were the only reason for revolt, but they were a major part, and shows that even if the majority of the people aren't affected, if it's wrong, then revolting against the government is perfectly fine.
ReplyDelete-William Dunn
Too few people understand the difference between breaking a law that intrudes our rights as free citizens and breaking a law in an effort to make a personal statement. For example, if a law violates our constitutional right to free speech, it is almost necessary to break it in order to contest it as unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate. In this regard, it is our responsibility to refuse to accept laws that strip us of our basic rights. However, many have misconstrued this idea, finding it acceptable to break laws to satiate a rebellious nature or make a statement. All people share a right to free speech, but that serves as no excuse to become violent or uncooperative with law enforcement. A fine example of such behavior can be seen with the Occupy Wall Street movement. What claims to be a grassroots campaign for justice is nothing more than disorganized chaos of of angry young students. They have created a pointless mess by defecating on public property and costing the NYPD nearly 2 million dollars in overtime costs. That said, they are breaking a number of laws (such as crossing over clearly marked barriers or attacking officers) in order to gain attention. Clearly, these protestors have a flawed understanding of what it means to break laws appropriately.
ReplyDeleteNikolas Balkovic
I agree with William when he talks about how the Intolerable Acts passed by Britain were an attempt to punish one colony and how the remaining 12 took it upon themselves to take it personally and revolt. These colonies felt it necessary to break the law because they wanted to defend themselves. Self defense is one easy way for people to break the law and in any cenario where your life is at risk breaking the law is sometimes the only way you can stay alive. Desperate times call for desperate measures and if it is completely necessary to break the law then it must be broken but doing it for fun or by being forced to will get you in more trouble.
ReplyDelete-Peter Pellegrini
I think breaking the law all depends on where your conscience sits with the idea of our democratic, law making society. If you believe that the way our laws are made and enforced is reasonable and just, then it's difficult to argue that any laws are "ok" to break. If, however, you disagree with how laws are formed, then you're pretty much free to pick and choose what you want to do. Inevitably, this will set you up for the old argument about which laws should be followed and which shouldn't (stealing food vs. killing someone).
ReplyDeleteHowever, you have to be careful in declaring that is it alright to break a law that goes against your conscience. What would happen if everybody decided not to pay taxes? Then we would have to think about all of those children who depend on government aid, which is dependent upon our taxes.
We must also think about the consequences of our actions and if it is ok to break a law if somebody else gets hurt by our doing so. Altogether, if a law infringes or violates a person’s freedoms, beliefs, or rights, they should have the ability to disagree and break a law. It also depends on the argument the person is making and their approach when expressing opposition (violence vs. nonviolence).
-Adrian Drobenko
I disagree with Jake here, that it is not ok to break the law. With the Boston Tea Party, breaking the law wasn't the right thing to do, it only hurt them in the long run, raised tensions even higher, and both sides suffered loss; there was no gain. For modern day examples, I bring up simple ones such as stealing or killing. These are laws, ones which protect our possessions, and our lives. If it was ok to break laws then, one, whats the point of having a law in the first place, and two, if it was ok to break it, then I could just kill anyone one I feel like, such as anyone here who disagrees with my arguement.
ReplyDelete- Kyle Creegan (note: the last sentence was a figurativly speaking comment, and I will kill anyone one.)
The government put laws in place in hopes of protecting peoples rights and to keep order in our country. However, in various cases breaking the law is acceptable and in others it is not. When driving you are not supposed to go through a red light, but if your in the way of an emergency vehicle then you will have to in order to move out of the way. This example shows a scenario where breaking the law would be acceptable. But if you were to just freely drive through a red light then it would not be. If a person feels that there rights are being taken away then I would have to agree with the declaration but if a person is simply protesting and not knowing what they're protesting about then they have no right to break the law. There are numerous laws that govern every person. You cannot simply pick and choose what you follow and don't and deem that it is alright to do so. The laws are in place for the simple reason of our protection. If you have a problem with them you should not live where they are in effect.
ReplyDelete-Christopher D'Anna
There are definitely some times when breaking the laws is fine. This is only if there are good reasons to back it. One has to be able to justify why he or she broke the law and under what circumstances. Laws, however, are used to and still should be made to protect the citizens in order to keep them and their homes and property safe. If people go around breaking laws against humanity, of course, they should not be allowed to be roaming around loose, as they are true dangers to society.
ReplyDeleteBut I also argue that under normal circumstances, everyone breaks the law everyday. Whether they are jaywalking, driving recklessly, texting while driving, etc. In this world of laws, there are too many arbitrary laws out there that you never know about. The best bet is to try to draw an imaginary line between "right" and "wrong." If you know something that is against the law, don’t go out of your way to break it. If it accidentally happens, it happens, but purposefully doing it can cause problems.
-Eric Kong
There are some people who make take what we are trying to say the wrong way. Everyone agrees that at some moments its okay to break the law under certain circumstances. Then there are some people who do not do it for the right reasons, they may do it for their family but robbing a bank for your family becuase you do not have money is not the same as doing be uase the government is corrupt. Just becuase a person can not make it on their own they should not break the law in order to cut corners.
ReplyDelete- john marchisello
It seems that all laws can be broken under certain circumstances; every law has a "loop-hole", so-to-speak. For example, one can kill someone about to kill someone else. The "killer" is doing the right thing and only protecting an innocent life. I feel like everything is circumstantial, and, at one point or another, a law can be justly and rightly broken. Are there any laws that are absolute and should never be broken?
ReplyDeleteThere is no definite answer because every situation has its' own exceptions. The only way to truly know if it's okay to break the law or not is to examine the situation. Normally a law is used to force everyone to follow rules and procedures without harming others. However, laws should be allowed to broken in the case of self defense whether it be because of a law that is racist during the civil rights movement, or in the case where you have to fight someone to protect your own self. Of course, each law you break has their own limits.
ReplyDeleteA time when the law cannot be broken is when people break it purely for unnecessary reasons or just for fun. Breaking the law in this situation is not okay.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Kevin, the situation dictates the ability to break laws only, not personal preference
ReplyDelete-Isidro Camacho
I feel that breaking the law is only acceptable in times where one is in danger. Although some people said that they would break the law if their rights were being alienated, most people would protest and argue, and none of this is against the law. I think that the only time that breaking the law is ok is in a dangerous situation, such as life and death. If someone is about to be stabbed that would be basis for breaking the law; however, if someone doesn't support a new tax, I doubt that they would go out and break the law. - Cody Mangano
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at why it is alright to break the law, I think we should look at the reasons why it is not ok to break laws. People decide to break laws because they are unjust, correct? Laws are necessary because they help keep social order and protect civilians from any harm. It is safe to say that there are no unjust laws in American society today. There might be a few laws that people disagree on, such as the drinking age, but even those are necessary to keep us safe.
ReplyDeleteFor example, many teens do not agree with the drinking age in America because they argue that if you’re allowed to fight for your country and put your life on the line in war at the age of 18, why can’t you just have a beer. The law bans minors from drinking alcohol and it is very beneficial. Drinking has many consequences and the law exists because it protects minors from these negatives and civilians from drunk drivers. Many laws are based off of countless numbers of surveys and precise research in order to improve the safety of Americans. For example, people believe that the law banning cell-phone use while driving is too strict. According to the Insurance Journal, California paid the most money in the country for fatal car crashes in 2005 and having this law is a way for the state to protect the lives of its people.
There are concrete and just reasons behind the creation of each law and we need to understand that. If we do not agree with a law and define it as unjust, there are ways to change it, such as counter-demonstrations or civil movements. Instead of taking the civil approach, people usually disobey the law, which changes nothing and even makes matters worse. Again, laws are absolutely necessary because they help keep social order and protect Americans from harm that is largely preventable.
-Adrian Drobenko
Overall, I agree that there are certain times that it is necessary to break the law. However, I disagree with the majority of the people who commented on this blog and their circumstances that it is okay to break the law. Braham, Patrick and John, just to mention a few, say that it is okay to break the law when the government encroaches on a citizen’s basic rights and freedoms. I think this idea is bogus because the laws set up by the government are not oppressive to the basic freedoms. If they were, then why do we still have them? If you think about it, if the government was oppressive, then the laws would have been amended from the beginning. The way I look at it is that every citizen has a contract with the government. On our side, we are committed to paying taxes, FOLLOWING the LAWS, and other obligations such as voting and being informed. The government’s side is to maintain a country that satisfies the people who elected them and keep our world turning. Legally, when one party does not abide by the terms of their contract, then the bond is broken. A citizen can only break the law when the government does not control their side of the bargain. In the terms of “Occupy Wall Street”, the protesters believe that the government has not regulated corporate greed and blame the banks. The government has not held up their end, so the protesters are expressing their 1st Amendment right of free speech. However, this “law breaking” has a limit. Just because the economy drops, doesn’t mean that you should murder some one. Peter A. is on the right track when he says that you have to stand up for yourself if your rights are violated. If your rights are violated, you fight it and stand up for yourself. You do not break the law. The government is not violating your liberties; it is the people enforcing them. Peter P. also says that you can break the laws when your rights are violated. I think this is wrong because if the justice system is true to its principles, you will be able to successfully fight for your rights, not break the laws as an answer.
ReplyDelete- Timothy Kelly