In the USA, the average male breaks the law at least three times a day without them knowing they break the law. says civil liberties lawyer, Harvey Silverglate, who wrote the book three felonies a day. Are laws a higher priority than human rights? Is breaking a law like shoplifting for food when they don’t have access to it good or bad? What if an organization is doing something immoral and it’s illegal to share? Maybe we should just live life and follow the rule of law. Do we do what's ethical and preceding to break the law for what right? Human rights, the necessity to live and whistleblowing can all be illegal but is it worth following the law, when it is not right to follow the law? Whistleblowers are one great example of people breaking the law for ethical reasons. Not all whistleblowers break the law, but some have to break the law to get the information out. Take Edward Snowden as one example of this, he works for the National Security Agency. He found out that American intelligence has extensive internet and …show more content…
Think of Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her seat on that bus, or the segregated bus stops in the South, or Nelson Mandela opposing Apartheid. In such cases, the purpose of the law was to maintain degrading systems of injustice and inequality, and it might be the breaking of a law is sometimes necessary to awaken a conscientious moral community to the need for change. The first adamant of the Constitution, freedom of speech, assembly, religion. This is the foundation of human rights that was created by the founding fathers of America. There are occasions when the ruling power or other powers may enact laws that breach these rights to people and lead to systematic injustices and widespread suffering. When this happens, resistance to such laws becomes a moral imperative. In doing so, those who refuse to obey the law might face legal
Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau each write exemplary persuasive essays that depict social injustice and discuss civil disobedience, which is the refusal to comply with the law in order to prove a point. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” King speaks to a specific audience: the African Americans, and discusses why he feels they should bring an end to segregation. Thoreau on the other hand, in “Civil Disobedience,” speaks to a broader, non-addressed audience as he largely expresses his feelings towards what he feels is an unjust government. Both essays however, focus on the mutual topics of morality and justice and use these topics to inform and motivate their audience to, at times, defy the government in order to establish the necessary justice.
... By including the same phrase at the beginning of each example, King underscores how society has not and will not revolutionize for the better unless advocates, like himself, propose the measures for change. Simply putting off such a necessary action will not With such injustices going virtually unnoticed by the white audience, King maintains that “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (15). Through appropriate use of antithesis, a distinctive difference that might otherwise be overlooked between the two statements can be formulated.
The Founding Fathers deemed the rights of the individual to be of utmost importance and enumerated specific protections of them in the Bill of Rights. Works Cited The "General Will." Wikipedia. The World of the. Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Dec. 2013.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
The Bill of Rights the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, ratified in 1791 and guaranteeing such rights as the freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship. These were the basic principles of the Bill of rights. These were the principles that American people was fighting for in the Revolutionary war. In the summer of 1787 thirteen delegates got together and came up with the Constitution. As things progressed they found out that the Constitution was deeply flawed and they needed to find a way to correct the problems that they had.
First Amendment: Freedom of Religion, of Speech, of the Press, of Peaceful Assembly, and the Right to Petition
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?
The NSW Criminal Justice System is adequate when dealing with young offenders; however, like any legal system it does have its limitations. The NSW Criminal justice system does uphold the rights of the young offender by providing juveniles with special courts under the Childrens Court Act 1987 (NSW) by providing special protections under the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child; the recognising of culpability in regards to the age of the young offender by implementing doli incapax and by arranging a variety of diversionary programs and alternative punishments. However, the limitations of the NSW Criminal justice system in relation to young offenders is Doli Incapax in the The Childrens (Criminal Proceedings Act 1987) NSW which fails to recognise more serious offenders and The Young Offenders Act allowance for youth justice conferencing is not being cultivated for a wide enough range of offenders, leading the exclusion of some young offenders from the benefits that conferencing can offer.
The political concepts of justice and how a society should be governed have dominated literature through out human history. The concept of peacefully resisting laws set by a governing force can be first be depicted in the world of the Ancient Greeks in the works of Sophocles and actions of Socrates. This popular idea has developed over the centuries and is commonly known today as civil disobedience. Due to the works of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. civil disobedience is a well-known political action to Americans; first in the application against slavery and second in the application against segregation. Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” and King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” are the leading arguments in defining and encouraging the use of civil disobedience to produce justice from the government despite differences in their separate applications.
Since the early history of our country, the protection of basic freedoms has been very important to Americans. The American voice on freedom has been shaped throughout history. The Bill of Rights was originally drawn up in June, 1789. On December 15th, 1791, the Bill of Rights were ratified and added to the United States Constitution. James Madison said that a bill of rights was good for the “tranquility of the public mind, and the stability of the government” (Burgar, Michael, 2002). Free speech and free press were most important to the drafters of the Bill of Ri...
According to Martin Luther King Jr., “There are two types of laws: there are just and there are unjust laws” (King 293). During his time as civil rights leader, he advocated civil disobedience to fight the unjust laws against African-Americans in America. For instance, there was no punishment for the beatings imposed upon African-Americans or for the burning of their houses despite their blatant violent, criminal, and immoral demeanor. Yet, an African-American could be sentenced to jail for a passive disagreement with a white person such as not wanting to give up their seat to a white passenger on a public bus. Although these unjust laws have been righted, Americans still face other unjust laws in the twenty-first century.
A series of cases will be presented in this paper to provide a clear idea of the First Amendment. Cases that have caused an impact in society and have changed or modified a law. The five rights listed under the First Amendment are: Freedom of religion; “Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion”. Citizens are allowed to practice any religion they want. Freedom of Speech: it allows the free exchange of ideas necessary for effective decision –making and protects the minority from complete domination by the majority.
In a list you make in your report specifically identify the status offense laws that are being violated by each of the underage teenage violators.
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.
The New South Wales Criminal trial and sentencing process is adequate in balancing the rights of the victims, offenders and society however like any legal system is does have its faults. The options in the trial and sentencing process are stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the Crimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Act 2010 and the Crimes (sentencing procedure) Act 1999 which features the use of charge negotiation, rehabilitation, mitigating factors and intensive corrective orders.