Right vs Legal

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, in order to pull this argument away from the Gun Control thread.

It seems there's a kerfuffle over doing what's right versus doing what's legal. I think we should all begin by stating our positions on the matter.




I believe that the purpose of law is to enforce what is right and just. If a law is unjust, then I believe it not only ought to be ignored, it is a moral duty to defy it.

My thesis has now been stated. Obviously I cannot begin debate until someone else states theirs.

[radiocerk]

I believe that if a law is unjust we have the moral imperative to find a way to overturn it, but it should be followed in the meanwhile. It is for judges and lawmakers to determine the laws, and we can fight their implementation, but they shouldn't be simply ignored.

There will always be someone who doesn't think a law is fair, or just, or right, but the laws are there for the benefit of the majority, not each individual person. We have to agree that the game needs rules, and that not everyone is going to like every rule, but if they work for the majority, they might be the best rules.

[FArchivist]

I state that the purpose of the law is to create order and stability, a working set of rules that all are subject to. Trying to determine what is "right", "moral", or "just" is a subjective matter of personal opinion; there is no 'Universal Right & Wrong' that everyone agrees with, and so right and wrong do not allow for a stable administering of civilization.

As a prime example, it is still a moral imperative for Catholics to repudiate Protestants and, by order from God as relayed by the Church, force them to recant or suffer execution. However, laws against murder forbid a Catholic from carrying out this moral imperative. Does this make the law unjust? Does abiding by the law make a Catholic immoral?

[I will point out that this moral imperative also has not been enforced by the Catholic hierarchy since the 1700s. But since it's never been repudiated or revoked, it makes a good example for discussion purposes.]

[Gravekeeper]

This is theorhetically good on paper, but such an incredibly slippery slope in practice. Especially working within the confines of a typical first world / industralized nation's legal system where we largely have stable democratic governments. So there are no laws which are obviously immoral.

The problem is our current legal systems at least for North America and most of Europe are already, by their nature, a concensus on what we can all agree are Bad Things(tm). Anything outside of this concensus ( Such as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc for easy examples ) is an individual opinion of morality. Often with a religious mandate, which imbues a sense of higher authority over the law of the land. Which of course doesn't work as its the moral belief of a minority trying to impose its belief on the majority.

[Hyena Dandy]

GK: I was speaking about the general role of law in society, not in any specific nation.

[Mytical]

Just because something is a law, does not mean it is Right. Also, regardless of what some in some religions would like you to believe...their 'laws' do not supersede normal law. While I am mostly one of those who follow the laws, regardless what I think of them, I also realize there would be a logical line I would not cross..regardless of the law.

IE. If tomorrow a law was passed that we had to kill a certain group of people on sight..I would not follow that law..period.

For the most part, if there is a law you are unhappy about..trying to get it changed is the path to go. While not following the law IS an option, remember the consequences for doing so. Face them like a man (or woman) and own up to your decisions.

Just remember there is a difference between being a rebel and being an anarchist.

[Canarr]

I state that the purpose of the law is to create order and stability, a working set of rules that all are subject to. Trying to determine what is "right", "moral", or "just" is a subjective matter of personal opinion; there is no 'Universal Right & Wrong' that everyone agrees with, and so right and wrong do not allow for a stable administering of civilization.

Signed.

The Law, as a concept, is necessary for the development and stabilization of civilization. A Law, singular, may (and will) occasionally be wrongly passed, or wrongly interpreted, or abused to further someone's personal schemes. That does not invalidate The Law in its entirety.

There are channels in place that allow for appeals against any law or judge's ruling that one deems unjust, and these should be followed. Laws and lawmakers should have the community's best interest at heart; thus, incidences where individuals abuse laws for personal gain should be appealed to higher judicial instances and overturned, where necessary.

However, that is opposing a law *within the system*. Defying a law is called civil disobedience, while ignoring a law is essentially the same as breaking it. Both carry the appropriate penalties, and they must be enforced, or The Law is meaningless. Yes, you may believe that you are justified in breaking a law you deem to be wrong, but the problem here is: there is ALWAYS someone who believes that. You cannot allow any individual or group to decide on their own which laws they want to follow, and which they don't like - otherwise, again, The Law is meaningless.

FA and GK already illustrated, and they're right:

- Stealing! How many threads are there on CS that deal with customers scamming or stealing from a business? And how often do they try and justify it when they're caught? "It's so expensive, I'm a single parent, I'm on welfare, I have bills, my children are hungry, this is so unfair..." I must have read those justifications hundreds of times. So, shouldn't they have a "moral duty" as HD put it, to defy the laws against stealing if they believe them to be unjust?

- Abortion clinics! If I believed it to be morally wrong to terminate a human life, for any reason, at any time, then shouldn't my "moral duty" compel me to strike against doctors and nurses performing abortions? To Hell with The Law, what do they know! *I* know that it's wrong to perform abortions, so I'll do anything to stop it! Set fire to buildings, sabotage equipment, assault medical personnel, whatever it takes!

Again: there are no moral absolutes, and thus, morality cannot be a deciding factor in lawmaking or -breaking. A society is only then a lawful (and just!) society when all its laws are applicable for all its citizens, all the time. Whether they like it or not.

[blas87]

This could easily be another 20something pager discussion.

Right vs legal......meh, what's "right" is always up to personal interpretation.

[Gravekeeper]

GK: I was speaking about the general role of law in society, not in any specific nation.

I'm not sure you can really seperate the two, seeing as the role of law in a society may differ based on its government. Between a tool of order on one side of the spectrum, and a tool of control on the other. With any degree of cultural or religious influences inbetween.

Ultimately, we're still down to individual opinions of morality vs the law of the land though. Which again, brings up back to the point of consesus. In a democratic society, the law will generally be what we all agree is bad. Cases of stuff that is considered good but legally bad by the entirety of us would be rare.

[draco664]

I believe that the purpose of law is to enforce what is right and just. If a law is unjust, then I believe it not only ought to be ignored, it is a moral duty to defy it.

The very reason you have the right to be tried by a jury. If you break an unjust law, a jury can nullify and find you not-guilty.

Of course, judges and prosecutors don't tend to like that very much. One judge in Florida even went so far as to ban people distributing leaflets outside the courthouse informing people of their right to nullify. (Yes, that is a judge breaking the first amendment. Epic irony.)

[Andara Bledin]

Ah, nice to see others who are aware of what juries have the power to do.

Did you know that the jury's decision isn't actually binding? If a judge really wanted to, they could ignore the jury's finding in favor of their own. Needless to say, this isn't really something that gets done as the furor over it would be massive.

The fun things you learn in a criminal law class.

^-.-^

[lordlundar]

Did you know that the jury's decision isn't actually binding? If a judge really wanted to, they could ignore the jury's finding in favor of their own. Needless to say, this isn't really something that gets done as the furor over it would be massive.

True. It usually happens if the judge feels the jury renders a verdict that's completely contradictory to the case, such as if a person committed armed robbery to steal a $3000 stereo and is found not guilty because he's presented as someone who steals out of necessity.

[draco664]

Ah, nice to see others who are aware of what juries have the power to do.

Did you know that the jury's decision isn't actually binding? If a judge really wanted to, they could ignore the jury's finding in favor of their own. Needless to say, this isn't really something that gets done as the furor over it would be massive.

The fun things you learn in a criminal law class.

^-.-^

Really? I did not know that. Is that a new thing, a US thing or an English Common Law thing?

I seem to recall reading about a libel case (pre 1st amendment) where the judge directed the jury to find the defendent guilty, even though what he had written was true. The jury went against the judge and found the defendent not-guilty anyway. (I'm buggered if I can find reference to it again though.) If that was the case back then, it would have been a prime candidate for such a dick move.

At any rate, jury nullification does have an evil twin - Jury villification. For when the defendent is demonstrably innocent, yet the jury still think that he should be found guilty (eyes being too shifty, clothes too flashy, skin too dark, that sort of thing)

[lordlundar]

At any rate, jury nullification does have an evil twin - Jury villification. For when the defendent is demonstrably innocent, yet the jury still think that he should be found guilty (eyes being too shifty, clothes too flashy, skin too dark, that sort of thing)

An opposite example to mine really. In that instance the judge can declare the jury to be biased and ignore their decision.

Really, the jury isn't making the decision, the judge still is. The jury is not much more than a committee assembled of the defendants peers to give a recommendation. If the judge finds the decision to be legitimate he can pass it through, but if he doesn't, he can choose to ignore it. He does need to have a really good reason to do so though.

[smileyeagle1021]

Well HD, as it is that I break the law on a regular basis (and I'm not familiar with your state laws or relationship status, but you may be as well). Theoretically, the Unified Police Department would be completely right to bust down my door and charge me with felony sexual misconduct, the trial would be very short, I would be found guilty and added to the sex offenders list (assuming the jury doesn't know about their right to annul, or more relavently in jesusland the will to). Just because the supreme court decided laws criminalizing homosexuality are unconstitutional doesn't mean that many states don't have the laws on their books, and (if anecdotal evidence is to be trusted) trying to enforce them.
I'll back up HD and say that there are some laws that don't even deserve the respect of going through the proper channels, they should just be blatantly and flagrantly ignored.