When does one become a criminal by obeying the law?
Henry David Thoreau presented several radical ideas in his mid-19th century writing “Civil Disobedience.” The work, published under the title “Resistance to the Civil Government”, raises several affirmations and deep questions about the law, the man and the government. A key issue Thoreau focused on was whether just men should continue to support government out of complacency without regard to moral reason. Should laws that are unjust be respected or should they be considered moot? His ideas seem like common sense to me, but his clear and practical ideas would be considered a capital offense in some oppressive nations. I think that Henry David Thoreau’s ideas are sound in theory. Society has been conditioned to accept ever-increasing taxes without competition, except for superficial discourse: how far can we, as a society, be pushed, pulled, hit, and sucked while still being accommodating? At what point does one become complicit in oppression by passive acceptance?
Thoreau gave three general answers from which one can choose when faced with the question of whether or not to follow unjust laws. He asks whether we should blindly follow everything the government asks of us without question, whether we should express contempt for the law and still stay within its limits, or “We should immediately transgress it” (Thoreau, 144). I believe that it is always within the rights of the individual to subvert authority in matters of adherence to unjust laws. While I don’t share Thoreau’s contempt for those who passively oppose it, I find that once the scope of injustices instilled by a government as law becomes brutal, all-encompassing and deaf to reason and redress, following the law, one becomes a criminal. of the higher laws of morality, reason and nature.
Thoreau despises those who express concern about unjust laws but abide by them. Thoreau reasons that these people see lawbreakers as damaging to their cause, which motivates them to adhere (Thoreau, 144). When the severity of injustice simply extends to the fringes of our liberties and prosperity, I find that it is the fear of repercussions for breaking the law that makes moderates comply.
Unjust laws with far-reaching encroachments must be actively challenged. I share a source of inspiration that Thoreau experienced: spending the night in jail. Few things can so quickly and completely change one’s pace and train of thought. Dr. Martin Luther King also shares this experience and views on the laws against reason and parity. In his renowned writing “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King develops the philosophy of unjust law enforcement. King argues that liberties are never willingly handed over by the ruler and will only come on insistence. Concerning the horrors suffered by oppressed African Americans, King proclaims, “There comes a time when the cup of resistance overflows and men are no longer willing to sink into the abyss of despair” (King). Dr. King lends support to Thoreau’s frustration with resentful conformism; the practice clearly seems to hit a nerve in both men. On this matter King says,
“I must make two honest confessions to you, my fellow Christians and Jews. First, I must confess that in recent years I have been gravely disappointed in the white moderate. I have almost come to the regrettable conclusion that the great stumbling block of the Negro in his step towards freedom is not the White Citizens Councilman or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice, who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the end you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternally believes that he can mark the time for the freedom of another man; who he lives by a mythical concept of time and constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’ Superficial understanding by people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding by people of ill will.” (King)
It has been incorporated into American law because of the ability of the people to overturn unjust laws through the jury void process. This philosophy is deeply ingrained in American politics, and by its practice it has done more to stop the development of tyranny than any other American policy. The first Chief Justice of the United States said, “The jury has the right to judge both the law and the facts in dispute” (Jay). The power of the people to invalidate unjust laws is stifled by the government in its struggle for control.
In the infamous case, US v Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, 1139 (1972), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling barring mention to the jury that “compulsion morality” or “choice of the lesser evil” “constituted a legal defense” (US v. Dougherty). In Vin Suprynowicz’s “The Undisputed Power of the Jury to Acquit,” he quotes AP writer David Kravets as saying that under a 1998 California “snitch” policy, “judges routinely order jurors to inform the court if a juror is not applying the law during deliberations”. (Suprynowicz). Jurors who are determined by the court not to base their opinions on the literal interpretation of the law are often replaced by surrogates. If this policy is removed to a level that completely prevents jury nullification, then the final barrier to stopping unfair laws with an orderly legal process is lost. The less you have to lose, the less you have to fear. And when one is trampled, to the point of breaking, along the way, most will reach a point where the benefits of compliance outweigh those of resistance.
Once the law becomes brutal and barbaric in its policy or application, the enforcers and those who live within its limits become criminals in the eyes of God, moral reason, natural law, and international treaties. “The judicial trial”, United States of America v. Alstötter et al, one of “The Nuremberg Trials”, highlights this point in the prosecution of judges who issued orders for murderous oppression in compliance with legal directives issued by Adolf Hitler. Most of the Nazi judges were found guilty at this trial, including Franz Schlegelberger, who provided lengthy justifications at his trial for his continued service as a Nazi judge even after the abhorrent reality of Nazi law became apparent to him. Despite Schlegelberger’s somewhat rational pleas, the Military Tribunal found that in deciding its rulings in accordance with Nazi law, despite its preference against Nazi atrocities against humanity, these rulings favorable to the Nazi party in earlier court rulings they gave credit and support to the resulting depravity than to lead the torture and death of political dissidents. Consequently, Schlegelberger was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity (Nuremberg).
Henry David Thoreau chose to secede from the state. He reasoned that it was improper of him to wait for change and patiently pay homage to unjust laws. He found that breaking the most unjust laws were necessary efforts, resulting in his refusal to comply with the law prohibiting aiding runaway slaves and his refusal to pay a mandatory tax used to support what he considered an unjust war against Mexico. . When the effects of an unjust law lead to tyranny and wanton treatment of human rights, it is the duty of just people to actively resist all efforts of such tyranny. The more heinous a regime is, the less compliance is needed for one to become a criminal by adhering to the law of such a regime.
© 2005 – David Oppenheimer – Performance Impressions
Works Cited
Jay, John. Jury rights. 1789. South Carolina Association of Fully Informed Juries. November 6, 2005
Jury Rights – PatriotNetwork.info
King Jr., Dr. Martin Luther. Letter from a Birmingham jail. April 16, 1963. University of Pennsylvania. November 6, 2005 www.africa.upen.edu
The Nuremberg trials: the trial of justice. Ed.Doug
Linder. 1948. University of Missouri-Kansas City
The law’s school. November 6, 2005
Suprynowicz, Vin. The undisputed power of the jury to acquit. 2002. Loompanics. November 6, 2005
[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm#U.S.A.%20v.%20ALSTOETTER%20ET%20AL%20
(The%20Justice%20Cases):]Suprynowicz, http://www.loompanics.com
Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience” Resistance to the Civil Government. 1849. A world of ideas. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2006.
United States v. dougherty. 1972. Maxwell School of
Syracuse University. November 6, 2005.
United States vs. Dougherty
