Is It Ever Just To Disobey The Law? Under What Circumstances?
The issue on whether it is justified to disobey some laws has raised endless debates among professionals and critical thinkers from all quarters. Some professionals support the ideas of disobeying the existing law while others are opposed to the ideas of violating laws. Some legal scholars argue that disobeying the law that is intended at bringing sanity in the society is highly detrimental. Individuals and organisations that disobey laws face criticism from diverse grounds. Some legal advisers argue that, citizens have an obligation of showing loyalty to their state by obeying the set regulations. Despite the rational arguments staged by individuals who believe in the significance of upholding the rule of law, some thinkers still maintain a position that disobeying some laws is justified. A common position argued by many highlights that laws that do not respect people’s basic rights are inappropriate and need to be ignored. In reference to the identifiable effects of some rules and regulations, disobeying some laws is often justifiable. This is essentially relevance in a situation where the law is discriminative or enhances exploitation of a particular group.
It is justified to disobey discriminative laws and all avenues that are legally acceptable to change such regulations are completely closed. In most instances, rules and regulations are adopted to bring order and sanity in the society. There exist legal procedures for correcting regulations that fail to meet their intended objectives. Imposing changes in the existing law also aim at meeting the interest of everyone in the society to eliminate bias and discrimination. In essence, imposing amendments to the existing regulations is vital to ensure that the prevailing law is in-line with the social, political, and economic changes in the society. It is worthwhile noting that civil disobedience is justified in cases where the authority fails to institute essential amendments to oppressive or outdated regulations. It is apparent that leaders who do not believe on democratic principles can hardly allow amendment of regulations that favour them. This position may be motivated by the fact the prevailing law may be defending the interest of such leaders at the detriment of the society. In this case, the society may be justified to disobey the law to resist being abused by such leaders
Furthermore, assuming civil disobedience towards the law that restricts individuals of a particular gender or race from enjoying their right to vote is justified. In an ideal democratic society, it is the right of every individual irrespective of his or her gender or race to engage in the election process. The right of choosing leaders in modern society is therefore a mandatory obligation of everyone. This means individuals who are denied the right to vote because of their gender or race are denied their fundamental human rights. It is apparent that a rule that does not allow some section of the society to vote deprives the society a right of determining regulations that govern them. In such a situation, the only effective means of changing or undermining this kind of regulation is through engaging in civil disobedience. Members of the society should have equal powers and responsibility of making any necessary changes and even propose for the abolition of unnecessary laws. This is because the law aim at serving the entire community members without any form of discrimination and bias. This scenario highlights that the institutions tasked with the role of legislating the law should be cautious to ensure that they do not formulate biased regulations since this can result to objections.
Human personality is a vital element in human growth and development. Modern society is defined by the manner in which community members effectively interact with each other without infringing one’s right to live. As a result, laws are set to respect human personality at all levels. In most of the modern civilised and democratic constitutions, human basic rights are paramount pillars that define the entire law. In its essence, the law should respect individual personality and life. Therefore, law that does not recognise the essence of human personality need to be subjected to civil disobedience. In addition, a law that fail to recognise the disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the society is inappropriate and does not match with the existing legal requirements. Modern society continues to experience constant demonstrations and go slows staged by the vulnerable and disadvantaged people in the society who are demanding for amendment of the existing laws to meet their interests and demands. Individuals with physical and mental disabilities need to be respected by the existing laws. Failure to make appropriate amendments to meet the demand of vulnerable people in the society can result to justified disobedience of the existing law.
It is the right of everyone in the society to be treated equally under the rule of law. Everyone in the society irrespective of gender, age, race or religions should be granted their rights as guaranteed in the international law on humanity. An appropriate law should also represent the interests of all members of the society with limited bias and discrimination. A law that does not give citizen right to own resources can by denounced in some instances. A good number of constitutions in modern society do not recognise the significant of community members in electing their leaders. Instead, this responsibility is given to a specific group of people who uses their position to maintain the status quo. In this kind of situations, the most effective means of making the necessary challenging these laws include engaging in civil disobedience.
The society is also justified to engage in civil defiance in a circumstance where a law directly violate social justice. One of the core roles of instituting laws in modern society is to install social justice in the society. Effective laws should foster justice and fairness within the society. This means that regulations that are not based on these principles are unjust to the society, which highlights the significance of objecting them. Fair regulations should provide the society with an effective approach of sharing and distributing the available resources. In particular, losses and benefits in a society should also be shared equally among members of the society. The law that does not recognise the social role of community members is inappropriate and incorrect. In the situation where the correction of such law is challenged either by the prevailing situations, civil disobedience is justified. Disobeying such law can also be justified where the relevant authority is reluctant in making the required amendments to safeguard the demands presented by the community members. Although civil disobedience should be the last resort in addressing this kind of regulations in modern society, the adoption of this strategy is often justified.
Disobeying the law is justified in a circumstance where it represents a democratic process. Engaging in democratic processes that aim at improving the welfare of individuals in a society is acceptable. The act of engaging in civil disobedience as a democratic process is essentially rational in the situation where the interest and demands of the minority population is compromised by the interest of the majority in the society. Under this situation, the minority group can be justified to boycott some of the discriminatory regulations to fuel immediate actions and amendments. In most cases, the majority group focuses on satisfying their interesting forgetting the fate of the minority group. The interest of the minority group often fails to be protected because although the relevant authority listens their concern, the majority always have a critical role in defining the course that sensitive decisions assumes. In this context, individuals from the minority group can establish their position in the society by boycotting some of the common regulations proposed by the majority group. This kind of law disobedience has proved critical in solving some of the legal discriminations encountered by vulnerable and minority group of the population.
Although disobeying the existing law is justified in some circumstances, some factors criminalise civil disobedience. In consideration to the core role of instituting law, engaging in civil disobedience is inappropriate since this may result to conflicts. The principle basis of the idea of formulation and implementation laws entails the need of maintaining a functioning society. Law installs order in the society by providing binding guidelines that each person must observe. Furthermore, law clarifies the penalty that any person who breaks a particular regulation should face. Obeying the set regulations is essential for organized and peaceful co-existence. This is because adhering to the law eliminates conflicts and confusions among community members. This is in contrast with the situation of unrest that is essentially realized when individuals fail to obey the law. The significance of establishing a peaceful society cannot be emphasized especially when considering the vital role of a serene condition in the development of stable social-economic and political states.
The idea of disobeying the law is also not justified because the practice contradicts the basic principles of democracy. Obeying the set regulations highlight citizens’ loyalty to their constitution, which is essential in democratic states as it indicates maturity. A mature democratic society is characterised by total compliance with the existing rule of law. As stipulated in the principles that guide modern democratic society, the law can only be amended through a democratic process where all players are involved at equal level. Law is the pillar that defines the organization of the society. This means amendment of the law need to be conducted in a civilised manner and in accordance to the set legal framework. However, disobeying the existing law defies the idea of democracy and highlight levels of un-civilisation. Involved stakeholders should adhere to the set legal procedures for amending the law instead of engaging in conventional means when solving legal issues. It is also apparent that disobeying the law has a regrettable impact on community social and economic development. The unrest that result from civil disobedience may result to destruction of properties and other critical economic and social resources
It is factual to conclude that disobeying the law is justified in some circumstances. In essence, defying regulations that discriminate against a group of individuals or unjust laws is justified. Individuals may disobey such regulations to challenge the authority from discriminating against them and lobby for essential amendments. Defying the set regulations also has the potential of encouraging creation of a situation where the laws that are adopted are addressing the interest of the community. However, despite being effective in solving legal issues, civil disobedience characterized with shortfalls that hinder social, political, and economic development. This means that although disobeying the law is justifiable under particular special circumstances, the practice is attached to various detrimental consequences. This highlights the significance of handling matters that relate to law with high sensitivity as they have a considerable effect on the establishment and state of the global community.
Bibliography
Bröstl, Alexander. Human Rights, Minority Rights, Women's Rights: Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, New York, NY: Stuttgart: Steiner, 2001.
David Lyons, ‘Moral Judgment, Historical Reality and Civil Disobedience, Philosophy and Public Affairs (1998) 31-49
David Spitz, Democracy and the Problem of Civil Disobedience, The American Political Science Review (1954) 386-403
Edmundson, William Atkins. The Duty to Obey the Law: Selected Philosophical Readings. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999.
Francis Olsen, ‘Socrates on Legal Obligation: Legitimation Theory and Civil Disobedience, Georgia Law Review (2004) 929-966
Jack Weinstein. Considering Jury Nullification: When May and Should a Jury Reject the Law to Do Justice, American Criminal Law Review (2003) 239-254
King, Martin Luther. Letter from the Birmingham Jail. San Francisco: Harper, 1994.
Stone, Julius. Human Law and Human Justice. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2005.
Thoreau, Henry David. Civil Disobedience. Harrington Park, N.J.: 5 x 8 Press, 2012.
Zellner, Wendy, Martin Luther King, and Amanda Troy Segal. Martin Luther King, Jr's "Letter from Birmingham Jail.". Oneonta, NY: Hartwick Humanities in Management Institute, 1993.
