Is it OK to break the law?

Post Reply New Topic

I use to be a law-abiding citizen. But since society continues to ignore my values, I feel inclined to think (and speak out loud):
"I don't care about what society wants of me. I don't want to become part of society's rules and regulations. I will do whatever that please me and
my values, regardless of what the law says, and break the law if neccessary and only think twice if I am running a risk of punishment."

I am not an anarchist. But I do have my own rules, which basically is to find The Ultimate Truth.
I don't want to go into details about my beliefs, in this thread, because it is not what this topic is about.

It is about wether one should break the law, if that is what correlates most with one's values.

Remember, that smuggling jews out of Danish territory was a crime in the 1940's during the nazi-occupation.
People did it, because they felt it was the right thing.

You can choose to accept, bend or break the laws of your country based upon your own moral principles; however, you have to be prepared to live with the consequences which may include fines or imprisonment. If you feel strongly that a law is unjust be prepared to be involved in organisations and demonstrations to have the law changed.

I dont think so I am a law abiding citizen although I sometimes get in trouble with police but usually minor stuff like jay walking and such. Break serious laws willingly you will go to jail even cops arrest other cops for breaking the law! [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nijNaHkkdnc[/youtube]

Well, I would say that if you believe society ignores your values, what have you done to try to get society to adopt your values?

Otherwise, I guess it comes down to weighing whatever benefits you would derive from breaking certain laws (unclear which laws or what benefits you would derive), and the risk of incurring consequences of breaking those laws, and what the consequences might be. If you are satisfied that there are no consequences, or that the risks / level of consequences are acceptable to you, then in that case I would say that when you ask us "is it ok to break laws?" you are asking us (i.e. society) to apply our values to your situation - which, I hate to say, seems counter to the rest of your post since you seem more concerned about your values than everyone else's.

Beyond that, history is filled with examples of laws and people living under those laws found them to be wrong, and tried to resist those laws. So I don't think there's a general answer to that question - it depends on the specific law and your own values.

"The jury has the Right to judge both the law, as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1789


"It is not only [the juror's] Right but his Duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." - John Adams, U.S. President


"The jury has the Right to determine both the law and the facts." - Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796


"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided."

and

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and the violation of it is no crime at all-for no-one is bound to obey an unjust law." - Harlan F. Stone, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1941-1946


"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the excercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and Right that was once the Citizen's safeguard of liberty." - Elliot's Debates. 94, Bancroft, History of The Constitution, p267.

Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience(link)

While a compelling argument for jury nullification, that last post doesn't precisely answer the original question.

You may be perfectly correct in your opinion that a particular law is unjust, improper, unenforceable or otherwise ought not properly apply to you. But the determination of that question does not rest with you. If you conduct yourself in a way that appears to break the law, and if you are called to account for that conduct, it remains to the triers of fact and of law to make the decision about whether or not your conduct was jutifiable or excusable.

There is a fine line between the freedom fighter and the malcontent. While we can readily point to historical figures who have flaunted the law in a noble cause that we endorse, that does not mean that every person who objects to the law is similarly placed.

The way I see it we have the freedom to make our own decisions as long we accept the consequences and take responsibility for our actions. Laws create additional "artificial consequences" to certain actions and those consequences need to be treated the same as any others. I believe that it is ok to break the law and accept all the consequences for doing so but it is not okay to try and avoid the consequences of your actions. Do what you want but be responsible for it. If it's not worth it don't do it.

In antebellum times, aiding and abetting escaped slaves was most certainly the right thing to do, even though it was highly illegal. During the civil rights era, the freedom riders and other champions for civil rights had violated the law concerning eating or going sh*t where ever they liked in the south, but it was the right thing to do.

As a Christian, I struggled with this issue.

I finally came down to this formula.

1. If a law does not violate God's law, I can obey it. I can't obey a law that tells me to do something contrary to what God's law says I must do.

2. If a law is not enforced equally on all people, it is not worthy of being obeyed. God's law applies to everyone equally. Any law that claims to be "just" but applies only to some but not others is inherently unjust and does not bear any moral weight to compel obedience to it.

There are a lot of things I freely disregard because I know it is only enforced on certain classes of people when it's supposed to apply to everyone. I feel no moral conflict in disobeying such "laws."

It's only illegal if you get caught.

Believing that laws are inherently moral is naive at best and fascist at worst. A tremendous amount of legislation is drafted to:
1. Make rich donors a lot more money.
2. Pander to voters.
3. Both.

i think its worded in the constitutions somewhere that means we should break unjust or bad laws, though i'm not sure. The us revolution was all about breaking unjust bad laws. as an individual without a large population behind the cause you will likely fail and accept punishment, though most movements started with acts of individuals.

right now in CT, a large group of people have deemed a law unjust and unconstitutional so they aren't following it, which means they are breaking it. what will come of it I don't know, the state hasn't made a big movement to enforce it cause it's impossible to do.