The way i see it, laws shouldn't really be called laws they should be called rules. The reason i say that is because laws are supposed to be unbreakable whereas rules can be broken under the right circumstances.

Heres an example. You are walking down the street and see a small child has wondered out into the middle of a busy intersection and is only moments from harm, do you wait for the crosswalk signals or do you rush out and save the child immediately?
Most (hopefully all) people would say that it was ok to break the law in this example.

So yes it is certainly ok to break a law just make sure everyone will agree with your decision after the fact.

---

The way i see it, laws shouldn't really be called laws they should be called rules. The reason i say that is because laws are supposed to be unbreakable whereas rules can be broken under the right circumstances.

Heres an example. You are walking down the street and see a small child has wondered out into the middle of a busy intersection and is only moments from harm, do you wait for the crosswalk signals or do you rush out and save the child immediately?
Most (hopefully all) people would say that it was ok to break the law in this example.

So yes it is certainly ok to break a law just make sure everyone will agree with your decision after the fact.

A child walks out. You are driving. drunk on your butt. u hit the child. do u stop or run ?

---

I don't think it is always right to obey laws.
I am thinking back to Nazi Germany, and the Jews. I don't know if Hitler actually passed a law saying that all Germans should persecute the Jews but he certainly made it socially acceptable to do so.
People have died as a result of evil legislation passed by governments. Of course a wicked law can be different from an ill-thought out law.
Although I am not a smoker, I do think that the anti-smoking legislation now being pushed through is a bad law. It is bad to me because I see it as an attack on personal freedoms and and far as I know there is no real evidence that passive smoking causes any harm to non-smokers. But I don't think that is a good enough reason to disobey it.
If the government passed a law saying that all citizens have a duty to snoop on each other or their families in order to pass information on pertaining to their sex lives or how much they eat or drink, or what their religious or political affiliations were, I would be inclined to ignore this law unless someone I know really is doing something bad, such as running a bomb factory in their garden shed (for example). However, such a snooper's law would be impossible to enforce anyway unless they decided to install cameras in every home.
As a better example, the UK government could announce that all doctors have a duty to provide abortion servies to women, or that all doctors have a duty to proved euthanisia to dying patients. If a doctor is against both of these on moral or religious grounds, then they have every right to disobey the law, or at least to refuse to work as doctors in this country. However, resigning from one's job or going elsewhere doesn't really solve the problem as the 'bad' law just remains in place for those left behind.
Perhaps it is better to take a stand against the law, by refusing to obey it.

I don't think it is always right to obey laws.
I am thinking back to Nazi Germany, and the Jews. I don't know if Hitler actually passed a law saying that all Germans should persecute the Jews but he certainly made it socially acceptable to do so.
People have died as a result of evil legislation passed by governments. Of course a wicked law can be different from an ill-thought out law.
Although I am not a smoker, I do think that the anti-smoking legislation now being pushed through is a bad law. It is bad to me because I see it as an attack on personal freedoms and and far as I know there is no real evidence that passive smoking causes any harm to non-smokers. But I don't think that is a good enough reason to disobey it.
If the government passed a law saying that all citizens have a duty to snoop on each other or their families in order to pass information on pertaining to their sex lives or how much they eat or drink, or what their religious or political affiliations were, I would be inclined to ignore this law unless someone I know really is doing something bad, such as running a bomb factory in their garden shed (for example). However, such a snooper's law would be impossible to enforce anyway unless they decided to install cameras in every home.
As a better example, the UK government could announce that all doctors have a duty to provide abortion servies to women, or that all doctors have a duty to proved euthanisia to dying patients. If a doctor is against both of these on moral or religious grounds, then they have every right to disobey the law, or at least to refuse to work as doctors in this country. However, resigning from one's job or going elsewhere doesn't really solve the problem as the 'bad' law just remains in place for those left behind.
Perhaps it is better to take a stand against the law, by refusing to obey it.

I fully support the principles Mac Girl puts here. It is only common sense.

An example of bad law, or at least it's implementation, was the Poll Tax. The principle of the Poll Tax was good ... all should contribute to local funding as all call on the local services. The implementation of the Law was a shambles. It caused protests and riots, and, quite rightly, was repealed.

The replacement - Council Tax - is bad as the Householder is the only person to pay for local funding, and many who use the local services do not pay anything towards this funding.

Still this is a difficult issue! But the principle of bad law is there to be seen!

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Aw, crunch, are you going where Sarge did with his 'I can't drive 55' thread? I there nobody that can say they have never broken a law?

NO.. "Sarge" and "cRuddy" are spelt differently..

I don't know anyone I don't like on these boards.. some folks I have a greater affinity with. I hope that's normal?.

I have broken laws... but I hope I have not broken what makes us better.

---

I don't think it is always right to obey laws.
I am thinking back to Nazi Germany, and the Jews. I don't know if Hitler actually passed a law saying that all Germans should persecute the Jews but he certainly made it socially acceptable to do so.

You have just broken Godwin's Law.........ding-ding-ding!

---

I am thinking back to Nazi Germany, and the Jews. I don't know if Hitler actually passed a law saying that all Germans should persecute the Jews but he certainly made it socially acceptable to do so.

I am thinking about Nazi America, and the Muslims. I don't know if Mr Bush actually passed a law saying that all Americans should persecute the Muslims but he certainly made it socially acceptable to do so.


And the comparisons just keep rolling in... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

As far as I am aware British Law (and most other legal systems) state that it is OK to break the law as long as you are trying to avoid or circumvent a greater infraction.

In other words you can walk on the grass without penalty if you are trying to stop someone stealing the grass.

You can swerve your car into the siding as long as you don't hit the pedestrian.

You can stop the traffic as long as you are stopping a pile-up.

You can shoot the thief as long as you are stopping them from shooting other people.


I know the law is owned by the rich and powerful.

But I like common law.. which is sometimes still observed.. sometimes..



We should forgive those that take absolute risks to make the world better..

I don't think it is always right to obey laws.
I am thinking back to Nazi Germany, and the Jews. I don't know if Hitler actually passed a law saying that all Germans should persecute the Jews but he certainly made it socially acceptable to do so.

You have just broken Godwin's Law.........ding-ding-ding!

And even I almost broke Godwin's Law: when I "narrowed the question", I wrote down examples - also the Nuremberg Laws from the "Third Reich" - but then I decided to delete the examples again, to see where the discussion may go :-D

---

Account frozen...

Ever hear of "jury nullification"...?

Yes.

You may have heard about that case about the teen that got sentenced to 10 years in jail for having consensual sex with another teen. It's been all over the news. Well if I was on that jury I would have done everything I could to keep that kid from going to jail for TEN YEARS. So if that meant ignoring the law and hanging the jury I would've done it.

---

Ever hear of "jury nullification"...?

Yes.
You may have heard about that case about the teen that got sentenced to 10 years in jail for having consensual sex with another teen. It's been all over the news. Well if I was on that jury I would have done everything I could to keep that kid from going to jail for TEN YEARS. So if that meant ignoring the law and hanging the jury I would've done it.

I never heard about that.. Ten years in custody for enjoying sex.. That law is numak haram..


You say teen! What teen years do you mean?

O Cr@p some of my pre-teens get rather sensual..


Who could hate god's creatures so much that they would imprison them for feeling so alive :o(

Does this have some relationship to berkeley's version of what is "kid friendly"?

OK.. I'm being naughty :)

Ever hear of "jury nullification"...?

Yes.
You may have heard about that case about the teen that got sentenced to 10 years in jail for having consensual sex with another teen. It's been all over the news. Well if I was on that jury I would have done everything I could to keep that kid from going to jail for TEN YEARS. So if that meant ignoring the law and hanging the jury I would've done it.

I never heard about that.. Ten years in custody for enjoying sex.. That law is numak haram..


You say teen! What teen years do you mean?

O Cr@p some of my pre-teens get rather sensual..


Who could hate god's creatures so much that they would imprison them for feeling so alive :o(

Does this have some relationship to berkeley's version of what is "kid friendly"?

OK.. I'm being naughty :)

He was 17 at the time. The teen girl was 15. The sentence was recently made void by a judge. This because the law was changed.

U.S. judge voids 10-year sentence in teen consensual sex case

"Who could hate god's creatures so much that they would imprison them for feeling so alive :o'(

Those that have a twisted religious sickness.

---

What this country (UK) needs is someone with a decent amount of common sense to go through a list of all laws (could take a while) and cross out the ones which are too petty to be reasonable. Obviously, many laws are correct and prevent social problems, eg obvious ones like not murdering people.
However, there are many laws which should be repealed, or at least adapted. The first one that comes to mind concerns undertaking on the motorway, highly illegal and can result in a prison sentence. However, if there is room to undertake there was room for the car being undertaken to have got out of the way anyway. So the guilty party is the car who was undertaken.

People should be left to their own devices a lot more and not meticulously governed to this kind of piffling detail!

(Rant over)

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Of course, you should not follow laws that are "wrong" (immoral/unethical?). The problem is, where should the line be drawn? A law requiring that you kill someone based on their religious beliefs is clearly wrong, and should not be followed, but what about the death penalty for fanatic terrorists? Too many people use the concept of not following an immoral law to excuse those things they just want to do, like smoking marijuana, but what about Charlie Manson, who thought the rest of the world was immoral?

If you have a freely elected, independent legislature to pass laws for the common good, the presumption should be that those laws are the will of the people, by virtue of the fact that the people put these legislators in place to do just that: make the laws. For me, the only justifiable breach of duly enacted laws comes in the most extreme "life and death" situations. Otherwise, there should be time to get the law changed--circulate petitions, write editorials, elect like-minded legislators or run for office yourself. In other words, if the law is wrong, change it. Gandhi refused to follow certain laws, and he did that to bring attention to their immorality, but critical to his action was his willingness to take the consequences. Most people don't apply that aspect of "civil disobedience".

Gandhi refused to follow certain laws, and he did that to bring attention to their immorality, but critical to his action was his willingness to take the consequences. Most people don't apply that aspect of "civil disobedience".

Kind of like "passive resistances" and bans. ;)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Gandhi refused to follow certain laws, and he did that to bring attention to their immorality, but critical to his action was his willingness to take the consequences. Most people don't apply that aspect of "civil disobedience".

Kind of like "passive resistances" and bans. ;)

True enough. If someone is banned from these boards for not following the rules, especially if they purposely violated the rules to bring attention to some perceived unfairness, then that person should be willing to take the punishment, that is, remain banned. Otherwise, they are just acting like spoiled brats, throwing a tantrum and trying and get their way.

A law requiring that you kill someone based on their religious beliefs is clearly wrong, and should not be followed, but what about the death penalty for fanatic terrorists?

How about the FANATICS who are FANATICAL about the FANATICS? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Gandhi refused to follow certain laws, and he did that to bring attention to their immorality, but critical to his action was his willingness to take the consequences. Most people don't apply that aspect of "civil disobedience".

Kind of like "passive resistances" and bans. ;)

True enough. If someone is banned from these boards for not following the rules, especially if they purposely violated the rules to bring attention to some perceived unfairness, then that person should be willing to take the punishment, that is, remain banned. Otherwise, they are just acting like spoiled brats, throwing a tantrum and trying and get their way.

I don't know of any repealed bans except for two way back in late September. :) Just remember, now, folks! No Marzipan cake stuff, lol! But, if you get banned for posting them, because they link to pix of unclothed dolls with upper body female body parts showing, you can become a mod a few months later. ;)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

How about the FANATICS who are FANATICAL about the FANATICS? ;)

So a sort of Fanatic²


EDIT: What version of BBCode is this forum running on, its hopeless.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Will you SETI crunchers hear me or are we billions of people outside of the USA's 120 or so million not to be listened to?

Uhh.. cRunchy, I think your figures need to be updated a bit. The USA's current population is around 300 million, not 120 million. 301139947 according to the CIA's estimate for July 2007 (next month's estimated figure).

It hasn't been 120 million since just prior to 1930.