Why People Comply With The Law

Voting is the foremost way to exhibit good citizenship and civil responsibility. People should get involved in elections and educated in all political measures. By this they become good and responsible participatory citizens. It should always be remembered that some people sacrifice their lives to preserve the freedom and voting opportunity as a sacred right. True democracy demands the involvement of the people otherwise in absence of that there is no democracy(Akande, 2011).

The criminal law system encourages compliance and reduces non-compliance through an array of mechanisms, including situational and social crime prevention along with increasing police powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment Act 2014 (LEPRA). The criminal law appears to be relatively effective in decreasing non-compliance, as the majority of people are law-abiding citizens as they enjoy the liberties and protection that a disciplined society provides. Criminal law may further encourage compliance by punishing violations of the law on behalf of society where individuals fail to comply. However, regardless of the criminal law’s efforts in reducing non-compliance, continuous defilements of the law occur frequently, causing the community to question the effectiveness of the criminal law in encouraging compliance and reducing non-compliance.

Over the length of this course, we have discussed several aspects of politics. We have studied citizenship and obligations to society as a citizen, justice and what it means to us as individuals, and how to go about enacting change within a community and around the world. Some of the most important topics from this class included the characteristics, duties, and obligations of rulers of government. In addition to the concept of rulers, we also studied the notion of authority and the moral and metaphysical implications of authority to individuals ' autonomy. Within each concept of study, we read works from many authors with conflicting ontologies, constructed from their differing views on human nature.

In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke argues that the authority of a legitimate political regime is based on the consent of free, equal, rational and reasonable persons. Locke differentiates between two forms of consent - express and tacit. Express consent is when an individual openly articulates a willingness to join the government. This makes the individual a perpetual citizen / the individual incorporates their person into the commonwealth. Those who have given express consent are unalterably subject to society and are never again at liberty as in the state of nature.

Anscombe presents her argument by first defining what marks the authority of the state. Once the authority of the state can be identified it can later be determined whether or not it is justified. This justification comes from the performance of a necessary task for the general human need. These necessary tasks cannot be performed unless there is extensive obedience. The state has a right to be obeyed when its authority is based on its performance of the necessary task. This exercise of authority from the state is justified.

As citizens, we have a moral responsibility to not only do the right thing for ourselves, but for the others around us. Therefore, if we secede our morals to the state, even though it does not define who

In our system of government we are privileged with the option to take part in the political process that runs the country. It is our right to vote that lets the people influence change in policy and set the guidelines that politicians must follow to be elected representatives. This precious ability, which is most coveted in most non-democratic countries, is taken for granted in our own.

As a society, we often feel we are free. But are we? What is this freedom we think we have? Gardner shows us that the government's main objective is to "satisfy the greed of the majority, the rest will do you no harm. That's it. You've still got your fiction of consent (Gardner, 118)". And if things go wrong, the government's immediate reaction is to use force to gain their objective.

Civil disobedience spawns a major and widely debated issue by many who established by well-known intelligent scholars and many examples of civil disobedience become displayed. The acts of civil disobedience can be noted in major works such as Sophocles?s Antigone, King?s ?Letter from Birmingham Jail?, or even from Plato?s ?from Crito?. A specific claim exemplified throughout these works make that civil disobedience races in gaining popularity and should remain allowed, and continued to be seen as a solution to reform poorly established laws. A claim represented is, civil disobedience is right. Rhetorically, appeals such

It is complacent to think one can obey the law in order for society to progress. The state should never be looked at as a metric for ethics. One can observe history to understand that. Freedom is a constant struggle that involves grassroot movements, collectivization and solidarity of the communities. The people must liberate themselves and cannot expect oppressors to relinquish their rights. One can see these concepts in movements throughout history.

"To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man.”

This essay will argue how the society dictates the state, as it will be organized into six sections. The first part of the essay provides the opposing argument that the social compact is dictated by the state. In the next section, I will demonstrate why the opposing points are weak and provide my main arguments. The arguments will comprise of how individuals in a society create laws and we collectively can change and implement new laws. The four ways individuals can

A second argument against the idea of consent is the following. Even if these actions can be held to constitute consent, does that mean the individual has to obey whatever laws the government makes from that day onwards? It can be argued that the act of voting e.g., or not leaving is maybe insufficient to justify creating the broad obligation to obey any law the government makes. We would possibly be exaggerating the weight of this single promise.

A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone

The fine line between obeying the law and not obeying it. Obeying the law kind of makes the world safer. When you don't obey a law and therefore caught doing the crime; you will be charged and possibly sentenced to a place where you are no longer free to do as you please. When you obey the law you get to do as you please with your life as long as you follow the laws. Laws are put into motion to create a safe environment for everyone to live in. No one should have to be worried about their lives everyday; but there are accidents everyday in which lives are lost.