Dispitus.com

Empowering change empowering Tech

Henry David Thoreau presented several radical ideas in his mid-19th century writing “Civil Disobedience.” The work, published under the title “Resistance to Civil Government”, raises several affirmations and profound questions about the law, man and 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 unfair be respected or should they be considered questionable? His ideas seem common sense to me, but his clear and practical ideas would be considered a capital offense in some oppressive nations. I think Henry David Thoreau’s ideas are sound in theory. Society has been conditioned to accept ever-increasing taxes without opposition, except for a superficial discourse: how far can we, as a society, be pushed, pulled, bumped and sucked while remaining accommodating? At what point does one become an accomplice to 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 bounds, or “should we immediately transgress them” (Thoreau, 144). I believe that it is always within the rights of the individual to subvert authority in matters of adhering to unjust laws. While I do not share Thoreau’s contempt for those who passively oppose, I find that once the scope of the injustices instilled by government as law becomes brutal, all-encompassing and deaf to reason and redress, following the law, one becomes a criminal. of the superior 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 harming their cause, which motivates them to join (Thoreau, 144). When the gravity of the injustice simply stretches to the limits of our freedoms and prosperity, I find that it is the fear of repercussions for breaking the law that makes moderates obey.

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 change one’s pace and train of thought so quickly and completely. This experience and views on the laws against reason and parity are also shared by Dr. Martin Luther King. In his renowned writing “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, Dr. King develops the philosophy of enforcing unjust laws. King maintains that freedoms are never given voluntarily by the ruler and will only come upon insistence. In relation to 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 conformity; the practice clearly seems to strike a nerve in both men. On this matter King says,

“I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brethren. First, I must confess that in recent years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost come to the unfortunate conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block towards freedom is not the White Citizens Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, more devoted to ‘order’ than 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 fatherly believes that he can mark the time for the freedom of another man; who lives by a mythical concept of time and constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’The superficial understanding of people of good will is more frustrating than the complete misunderstanding of people of ill will”. (King)

It has been incorporated into American law because of the people’s ability to invalidate unjust laws through the jury nullification process. This philosophy is deeply ingrained in American politics and, in practice, has done more to stop the growth 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 suppressed 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 Circuit of the District of Columbia upheld the district court’s ruling barring mention to the jury that “compulsion moral” or “lesser evil choice” “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, who says that under a 1998 California “snitch” policy, “judges routinely order jurors to inform 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 alternates. If this policy is suppressed to a level that prevents jury nullification altogether, then the final barrier to stopping unjust laws with an orderly legal process is lost. The less you have to lose, the less you have to fear. And when one gets 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 oppressions 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 bias against Nazi atrocities against humanity, these rulings favorable to the Nazi party in earlier court rulings they gave credence and support to the resulting depravity that led to 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 for 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 that forbade 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 unbridled 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 criminal by adhering to the law of such a regime.

© 2005 – David Oppenheimer – Performance Impressions

Works Cited

Jay, John. Rights of the jury. 1789. South Carolina Fully Informed Jury Association. 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 Civil Government. 1849. A world of ideas. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2006.

United States vs. Dougherty. 1972. Maxwell School of

Syracuse University. November 6, 2005.

United States vs. Dougherty

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *