The Pros And Cons Of Breaking The Law

"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual 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 over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

Michael Tarver is a 55 year old man who is serving a life sentence for murder in Atlanta, Georgia. Tarver is a diabetic with circulation problems, while in jail he got a cut on his leg. After receiving this cut he went months in confinement without proper care and because of his diabetes he was prone to infection and had to have his leg amputated. In 2012 Tarver filed a lawsuit written in longhand and filed without the consultation of an attorney. Dr. Chiquita Fye is the 65 year old woman who has been the medical director at this prison since 2006. This “lawsuit asserted that Fye was deliberately indifferent to his injury as he languished for months in the prison infirmary. Deliberate indifference to a prison inmate’s medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” (The Associated Press) Many inmates have filed lawsuits against this doctor all complaining that she neglected them of proper care. And there is so many other cases out there showing that prisons do not give proper care to inmates who need it.

Who are the ones who enforce laws across the U.S? Law Enforcement are ones who enforce laws for that reason taxes fund law enforcement. They are the one who assure the safety of Americans. The FBI, Justice Department, Homeland security and U.S marshals are a few of them. They may not lack resources but with an increase in funding they would be able to have even more resources so they'll do a better job at ensuring the safety of Americans.

Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? This moral question addresses what we commonly know as civil disobedience. In order to properly discuss civil disobedience and whether or not it is moral to disobey laws, we must first characterize civil disobedience. In Peter Singer's book, Practical Ethics he begins to characterize civil disobedience as arising from "ethical disagreement" and raising the question of whether "to uphold the law, even if the law protects and sanctions things we hold utterly wrong?" (Singer 292).

However, breaking the law is not always justified. Vigilantism and Terrorism are two major issues where groups or individuals claim to be providing justice or freedom. Vigilantes like the Ku Klux Klan are basically extremists who try to bring justice by exterminating wrong doers, while in doing so they are violating greater laws. To some they are freedom fighters and to others they are terrorists. Other extremists like the Jihadists are even worse; they conduct violent bombings and self sacrifices in the name of religion destroying innocent lives along

Criminal justice is defined as the system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of Committing a crime. Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between GOD and humans. Criminal justice is a process, involving a series of steps beginning with a person committing an alleged crime, a criminal investigation and ending with the release of a convicted offender from correctional supervision. Rules and decision making are at the center of the process.

While reading “The Crito” By Plato and Martin Luther King’s “Letters from a Birmingham Jail” I will use these two pieces of literature as a spring board to answer whether it is moral to break a law that you consider unjust. I will start first by analyzing Plato’s dialogue “The Crito”. The conversation takes place in a prison; this is where Socrates is awaiting his execution, and will be serving out the last days of his life. Socrates is visited by a long time follower and student, Crito. His reason for visiting is as simple as persuading Socrates to escape. He throws argument after argument at Socrates, and hoping that he will be able to convince his friend that he should flee the city. Socrates could not break the law just because he believed

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.

In Thoreau 's essay Civil Disobedience he makes the point that bystanders are just as bad as criminals and that people should stand against unjust crimes even if it means going against the law. And to some extent I do agree because in the past people have broken unjust laws and have created change. A well-known example would be when Rosa Parks sat on the bus in the "White-only" seating area, which lead to important events that helped push the Civil Rights movement forward. But I think that it depends on which laws they choose to break and how far they choose to go with it.

Martin Luther King used the same idea of unjust laws to justify his actions and nonviolent campaigns. He used this idea to answer the question of how he can support the breaking of some laws, but not others? His simple answer was that there are two types of laws, just and unjust, and "an unjust law is no law at all." (80). He goes on to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, ."..Any law that uplifts personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." (80) and says that any individual that breaks an unjust law and accepts the punishment of imprisonment actually has the "highest respect for the law." (81). King makes a very strong point in distinguishing just and unjust laws to advocate his actions, just like Stanton and Anthony do in their address.

Violation of laws was the first ingredient in making non-violence work because it showed how the people who were victimized by the laws really felt about the laws. Gandhi had to rebel against the laws when he wanted the Salt Laws to change; he wrote a letter saying “ if my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh day of this month I shall proceed….. To disregard the Salt Laws.”(Doc.1) While, Dr.King violated laws when he sat at a lunch counter, he claimed his purpose for doing it was “to bring the whole issue of racial injustice under the scrutiny of the conscience of Atlanta.”(Doc. 2) Lastly, Mandela broke some laws as well when he told his supporters “that volunteering (for the Defiance of Unjust Laws campaign) was a difficult

There were times in history when breaking the law was justified: great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King broke the law and changed the world for the better.

The most important thing that a law enforcement officer can do is the right thing. We as officers of the law are suppose to be role models. I have been in law enforcement of almost two years and I have never accepted free stuff from any restaurant or local business. I my self-have always taken my top shirt of or just changed my clothes completely. I do not think that I should get any special treatment from anyone just because I am an officer and what I was sworn to do. So I would like to talk about the pros and cons of officers accepting free meals and coffee, not accepting free meals, higher standards, officers getting sued or the department getting sued, and civil liability.

The United States is home to five percent of the world population, but 25 percent of the world’s prisoner. There must be a change to the current prison system which is doing more harm than good in American society and must be reformed. Reasons for this claim are that American prisons are too overcrowded with inmates, which creates a dangerous and unhuman environment. The cost to run a prison has gotten too expensive for tax payer pockets, and lastly the prison system is more as a punishment instead of rehabilitation with about sixteen percent of inmates most serious offence being drug charges. Prisons fall short of reforming criminals and the government is obligated to completely reform the prison systems in the United States.

Ban animal cruelty! Give aid to the poor! Save the rainforests! Obey the law! As a human race we must strive to fulfill these commands, for they are our moral duties and obligations. Our obligation to morality sometimes leads to a dilemma. What happens when a law contradicts the morally right thing to do? Would it be moral to act illegally by breaking the law? No matter how drastic the measure, we are still required to act morally--even if one must break the law to do so. But why is it so important to be moral that one could justify something as serious as breaking the law?