Laws are made to protect society and the people in society. They are to set boundaries for what is okay and what is not okay. They keep the community safe and the people feeling safe. Whether a law is minor or major a law is still a law. With laws there are often blurred lines with breaking a law and coming very close to breaking it but not necessarily breaking it. Often there are also a lot of loopholes to go around laws which is considered not technically breaking it. People often think that if they break a minor law then it’s okay because there are worse things that they can do. The author states how Americans are becoming more and more casual with breaking the law. I agree with the author’s statement.
In the excerpt “A Red Light for Scofflaws” Trippet provides examples how breaking minor laws is ruining society and hurting it even if they are minor. “ When it comes to tax codes, or laws against littering or speeding or noise pollution, more and more ordinary citizens are becoming scofflaws.” (Trippett) This shows how
…show more content…
People think that there are other people out there doing bigger and worse things so nobody is going to pay attention to what they are doing. In the excerpt “A Red Light for Scofflaw” it states “ You’re a fool if you obey the rules.” This shows how it’s becoming the new normal for people to just not follow any rules and think that they should have no consequences. People that think they never do anything wrong because everything is just small and minor and they should get away with everything should have to suffer the consequences so that they learn that a law is a law and breaking one is still an offense and there should be repercussions that they have to go through. People think that there is only such thing as violent crime and other crimes do not get
laws is to keep the bad things out from the old society out such as
one of the most common ways that people break the law. When people break the law
The collateral consequences of criminal convictions rather than the direct result are known as “invisible punishments”. In his article “Invisible Punishment”, Travis discusses the unintended consequences that punishes an individual beyond the formal sentence. Criminals are not only punished once for their crimes, they are punished twice, and these invisible punishments follow them throughout their lifetime. Travis explains that these punishments are a form of “Social exclusion”, not purposely designed but merely due to operation of law.
Laws are objects that dictate how people act every single day, but laws are not just made easily with a flick of a wand, there is a specific and tough process to go through if a bill wants to become a law, which
It is largely understood that laws are put in place for the good of the communities which they govern. Laws are meant to reflect the wishes of the people and the general consensus is that as a result, these laws should be followed without question. In reality this is not always the case. There are often laws worth questioning whether it be for convenience, personal gain, or deep personal or moral reasons. A historical connection to the latter would be the protection of Jews from the Nazis during WWII and the Holocaust. Hitler created a document outlining a death penalty for any and all persons who were caught aiding Jews in any way, small or large. Despite this law being enforced with dire consequences for infraction, there were still
...r society has come too. I feel saddened that violence and drugs are so prevalent that the most innocent of acts—eating a Pop-tart into the shape of a gun—is considered criminal. I feel blessed to have been raised during simpler times when sneaking out and tee-peeing the neighbor was the biggest concern that your parent had and at the same time I am sad at the things my own children will face as our society continues to change. I pray that we find the grey area in order to all of our students and children a service and to put reinstate the purpose behind the zero-tolerance policy.
Societies idea of punishment for crimes committed takes the socially depraved out of the general population and places them into a contained environment that has an out of sight, out of mind mentality. Social media plays an unforgiving role in this process. With more video and witnesses available, the strain on the criminal justice system is at an all-time high. Administrators must determine the best way to handle internal conflicts, balance them with societies idea of equal justice, and the actual laws on the books. The black and white regulations create loopholes that frustrate the system. In the conflict model, the special privileges of the classes that have a higher socioeconomic advantage become the norm, instead of the exception. Consensus warrants equal treatment for every class of citizen and for the punishment to fit the crime. Conflict model enforces harsher guidelines on charging and/or sentencing on minorities, lower socioeconomic levels, and individuals that are considered lower beings. The basic human rights of every person born in the United States of America have no bearing on the criminal justice system or procedures. There is no accountability when authority figures use antiquated ideals to administer
There are many prisoners sitting in prison today for a crime not committed by them. Sometimes, the law rushes into convictions before getting complete facts. Maybe a small town needs revenge, which could lead to a wrong conviction. It could be from “ignorance of the law”. Most are not aware of their rights and what could be said that might falsely incriminate a person.
It appears that people will always break the law to indulge in their personal vices, the difference lies in how far they are willing to take their law-breaking.
Frank Trippett in his passage he explains that Americans who break the law never call themselves lawbreakers. He first argues that when it comes to tax codes, or laws against littering or speeding or noise pollution, more and more American citizens are becoming people who casually break the law. He supports his argument by stating that the foundations of social order. are profoundly shaken when ordinary law-abiding citizens take the skirting the law. Millions of Americans break the law everyday by speeding, littering, or even trespassing.
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.
Breaking the law is unfair simply because we have a duty to “obey the law, it is built into citizenship” (Walton, 2107) and breaking the law would cause dysfunction among society. For instance, the social contract theory explains how the authority to rule is granted to the government by the people who make a contract with the government. Each side has obligations which must be met for the contract to be valid. Furthermore, almost everyone reaps the benefits of living in a state where there is social welfare people willingly accept the help from the government. By doing so, citizens unintentionally agree to follow the laws set in place.
Both of these theories help explain, they go hand in hand, together they state that the majority of the society has to agree upon a normal behavior which then they enforce and bring attention to. They bring attention to it in order for everyone to know that if someone violates the rule they are able to “punish” them in some way. For this deviant act, the punishment would be the label and stigma you get in the eyes of those who see you after doing the deviant
According to Reference.com (2007), law is defined as: "rules of conduct of any organized society, however simple or small, that are enforced by threat of punishment if they are violated. Modern law has a wide sweep and regulates many branches of conduct." Essentially law is the rules and regulations that aid in governing conduct, handling disputes, and dealing with criminal actions.
Both law and morality serve to regulate behaviour in society. Morality is defined as a set of key values, attitudes and beliefs giving a standard in which we ‘should’ behave. Law, however, is defined as regulating behaviour which is enforced among society for everyone to abide by. It is said that both, however, are normative which means they both indicate how we should behave and therefore can both be classed as a guideline in which society acts, meaning neither is more effective or important than the other. Law and morals have clear differences in how and why they are made. Law, for example, comes from Parliament and Judges and will be made in a formal, legal institution which result in formal consequences when broken. Whereas morals are formed under the influence of family, friends, media or religion and they become personal matters of individual consciences. They result in no formal consequence but may result in a social disapproval which is shown also to occur when breaking the law.