Frank Trippett, in his prompt A Red Light for Scofflaws, informs that “foundations of social order are profoundly shaken when ordinary law-abiding citizens take to skirting the law.” He backs up his claim by first saying that these small laws being broken are made to protect to nourish society. He then explains that americans think that law and order can only happen when a violent crime is committed. He speaks in an informative tone for young adult audiences. Some laws in society are harmless when broken, scofflaws never affect anyone.
Laws are made for the sole purpose of keeping things in order. Authorities will say laws are laws and they are not meant to be broken. As a society americans need to follow every law there is in order for there to be order. In the governments eyes scofflaws are still breaking breaking the law no matter how serious it may be and should be punished for their actions. Really the laws that are being broken are harmless. What society calls scofflaws are just average everyday people who may forget to drive with their seatbelt on or possibly throw a piece of food on the floor for an animal to eat. Scofflaws are really everyday average people who go along their day not affecting anyone in a bad way.
…show more content…
No one was hurt, no one was offended, nothing in the world has changed. He literally did nothing wrong. Trippet quotes “The slogan of the day seems to be, ‘you’re a fool for obeying the rules.’” Anyone adult who has any kind of job knows that this slogan is absolutely absurd! If someone were to not obey the rules they obviously know they would get severely punished for it. The only rules that scofflaws break are the ones that are harmless to society, Like making a u-turn in a no u intersection at 12 a.m. when no one is out driving. The laws are put here for the chance of something bad happening, there is no guaranteed chance, so the punishment shouldnt be severe at
Crime and deviant behavior surprisingly helps increase “social activity” among various different people within a society. Therefore, crime and deviant behavior brings “people together in a common posture of anger and indignation…when these people come together to express their outrage over the offense…they develop a tighter sense of solidarity than existed earlier” (Erikson 4). For example, in the Steven Avery case, the people of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, all had very strong feelings of Steven Avery and his family, and as a result they were seen as deviant people in their own hometown. Those feelings towards him, and his family, would be a critical factor when he was accused of the horrendous crime (Making). Based on their feelings towards the Avery family, the society in which he lived developed the overall concept of us versus them (Erikson 11). Therefore, another concept that arises as a result of crime and deviant behavior is public temper, which is described as a “mutual group feeling” (Erikson
People may say that they have broken the law, thus they have committed a crime. Yet, Clarence’s definition of crime differs from the general assumption of society. Our population views crime as something a criminal would commit, whether it be theft, murder, or what have you. It can be demonstrated that circumstance has shaped what we call law and what is viewed as crime. If a person breaks into your house and robs you of something they do not have themselves, it is considered breaking and entering, and can be punishable by jail. However, if Mr. Rockefeller raises oil prices in the winter because he knows people will have to pay it or freeze, it is considered smart business; even though it is clearly theft. Both parties are committing ‘crime’, but society has deemed Mr. Rockefeller, the person who is a thief, respectable; while the person who is breaking and entering, a criminal, solely because it is all they know to do to
Legal consciousness refers to how people’s different conceptions of law determine whether they mobilize or resist the law (SOC216, Jan. 26). Susan S. Silbey and Patricia Ewick disclose three narratives of how people perceive the law: before the law, with the law and up against the law (2000). Individuals who are before the law fundamentally treat legality as an objective realm that is removed from their ordinary social lives (Silbey and Ewick 2000). They believe that the law is a hierarchical classification of rules that is both majestic and impartial (Silbey and Ewick 2000). In regards to ‘with the law’, legality is described and played as a game, in which existing rules can be arrayed accordingly and new rules can be invented in order to serve the individual’s interests (Silbey and Ewick 2000). Legality is described as a “terrain for tactical encounters” where
For example, when we look at the anarchist squatters, informal ordering would not be affective in this situation and a police presence was subsequently required to enforce the eviction. In addition, social order is also challenged through the eyes of the media where people see the actions of others and learn from this (Blakeley, 2014, p87). People also begin to learn what is acceptable and what is not by discovering what happens when rules are broken. Furthermore, in the video ‘Ordering Lives’ we can see that police are formally enforcing the importance of laws surrounding fly tipping and anti-social behaviour for example, in an informal setting and encouraging the community to report such behaviours (The Open University,
The individuals within our society have allowed we the people to assess and measure the level of focus and implementation of our justice system to remedy the modern day crime which conflict with the very existence of our social order. Enlightening us to the devices that will further, establish the order of our society, resides in our ability to observe the Individual’s rights for public order.
I don't think it's right to break the law, no matter what the circumstances are. Breaking the laws is wrong, and people shouldn't think that it's an okay thing to do. If you don't agree with the law, you should try to get in contact with someone high up in the government and explain to them your stance on the issue, and why you believe it needs to be changed, or removed altogether. The laws are in place for a reason, and that is to protect us. American citizens need to start respecting the laws more, and respect those who enforce them.
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
In any type of society from hunter/gatherer tribes to post industrial nations there are rules and regulations that must be followed for the safety and benefit of said society. Over the centuries these rules have become more rigid and concrete and have transformed into strict laws that all who wish to exist in that society must follow and obey or face severe punishment. The laws are a supposed codification of social norms that all those in the society feel are common practices we must abide by and follow. The laws are created to prevent chaos from erupting amongst the people and to keep order and balance by punishing those who disobey therefore deterring others from also committing such acts. The sole existence of law is for the protection of society and the protection of those in the functioning society. Law however can also lead to the erosion of conventional societal norms and in fact put many individuals in severe danger, specifically laws that are seen as unfavorable amongst the majority of society. Unjust laws and oppressive ruling can have several unexpected consequences on a society such as revolution which much like what the American colonists did in the late 18th century decided to break away from their overbearing monarchy and form a new society with a different set of norms and laws. At the beginning of the 20th century however, a new form of response to unjust laws was born and created mayhem in major cities across the nation, the rise of Organized Crime and the underground market. Society itself has created these forms of crime through the implementation of certain laws and allowed violence and destruction to manifest in opposition to that or a specific group of social rules. Whether it was the rise of gangs in the 1...
It is very interesting to see that even though when someone breaks the law in the United States, they will still be protected by that very law. Even as one violates the rights of others, the law will make sure that their rights are protected. It almost seems that has more rights by breaking the law instead of following it. Police are prevented from using extreme force against them and lawyers are at the ready to serve these criminals. Criminals have forfeited their rights when they have violated the rights of others. Why should the law be so intent on protecting their rights, when they have no intent on following the law?
Donald Black proposes a framework for the behavior of law from the social perspective, considering law per se, not involving the psychology of human behavior. As any generalizations, Black?s propositions are abstract, but if one inserts realism into them, their ability to predict will diminish. Explaining all of the aspects of social behavior, Black arrives at the predispositions to deviant behavior, providing a reduced and generalized model on functioning of law, specifically outlined and organized.
After that event, I made things very clear what I would never do again. From then on I never did something just because everyone else did. I would assess the situation and decide whether the action was worth it’s consequences. This event prevented me from becoming one of those people who break the law just because they can, or because it gives them an adrenalin rush. My actions on that fateful day were definitely not worth the consequences that I suffered, and because of that, I have been very obedient of the laws and rules that are around me.
Whether you are a well-conditioned airplane pilot, an internationally acclaimed actress, or a law abiding commoner attempting his take at freedom, transgression is equally plausible for them all. However, each scenario’s appeal towards transgression is different, some are justified and others not. For example, in a well-developed functioning society where everyone has a say, transgression without a concrete reason is defined as misconduct, almost automatically being noted as unscrupulous by everyone. Conversely, in a war torn country, transgression can be seen as an act of valor and is commended by the masses despite disapproval of the controlling regime. Although breaking the rules can be equally tempting for everyone, each unique case of transgression must be evaluated based on its circumstances and reasons as to why the rule was broken, despite it being equally punishable by law no matter what the circumstances, shows that transgression can be divided into three distinct variations.
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
To conclude, it is morally permissible to break the laws when it is morally right to do so, the law is unjust or out-dated. It is true that laws reflect what the society thinks, but this rule of majority could repress and tyrannize the interests of the minorities, such as AIDS patients. Thus, it is morally permissible to break the law under certain conditions.
The concept or the definition of crime has always been dependent upon public opinions and more than any other branch of law, criminal law is the mirror of public opinion. Thus, law a...