American Jewish Filmmakers 2D Ed
|
Henry David Thoreau staged various radical ideas in his mid-nineteenth century writing “Civil Disobedience”. The work, published underneath the title “Resistance to Civil Government” puts forth assorted unfathomed assertions and questions concerning the law, man and the government. One key subject that Thoreau concentered on was whether just men must carry on to support the government by complacency with no regard to moral reason? Should laws that are unjust be adhered to, or will have to they be viewed as moot? His ideas seem like mutual sense to me, yet his clear and practical ideas would be considered a capital offense in a heap of oppressive nations. I believe that Henry David Thoreau’s ideas are sound in theory. Society has been conditioned to receive ever-increasing taxation without contest except for superficial discourse—how far may we, as a society, be pushed, pulled, punched and sucked while remaining complacent? At what point does one become a co-conspirator of oppression by passive acceptance? Thoreau gave three popular responses one may choose from when faced with the question of whether or not to follow unjust laws. He asks if we will have to blindly follow all that the government asks of us without question, must voice contempt for the law yet still stay within it is bounds, or “Shall we transgress them at once” (Thoreau, 144). I believe it is always within the rights of the person to subvert authority on the matter of adhesion to unjust laws. While I do not share Thoreau’s contempt for those who passively oppose, I find that once the scope of injustices instilled by a government as law becomes brutal, all-encompassing, and deaf to reason and redress, by following the law, one becomes a criminal of the higher laws of morality, reason, and nature. Thoreau holds contempt for those who voice concern for unjust laws yet comply with them. Thoreau reasons that these humans view law violators as hurting their cause resulting in their motivation for adhesion (Thoreau, 144). When the severity of the injustice merely extends to the fringes of our freedoms and prosperity, I find that it is the fear of repercussions for breaking the law that causes compliance with moderates. Unjust laws with far-reaching encroachments will have to be actively challenged. I portion a source of inspiration that Thoreau experienced—spending the night in jail. Few things may so quickly and exhaustively change one’s pace and train of thought. Also sharing in this experience and views concerning laws versus reason and parity is Dr. Martin Luther King. In his widely known and esteemed writing “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Dr. King elaborates on the system of belief of compliance to unjust laws. King holds that freedoms are never voluntarily surrendered by the ruling and will only come by insistence. Relating to the horrors that oppressed African-Americans suffered, King proclaims, “There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer more than willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair” (King). Dr. King lends aid to Thoreau’s feeling of annoyance at being hindered or criticized with the resenting conformer; the exercise seems to without doubt or question strike a nerve in both men. On this matter King says, “I will have to make two honorable confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I ought to confess that over the past few years I have been severely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who alternatively chooses 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 goal you seek, but I can not agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he may set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical conception of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more commodious season.’ Shallow understanding from persons of good will is more discouraging and hindering than sheer misunderstanding from persons of ill will”. (King) It has been integrated into American law for the capacity of the persons to invalidate unjust laws through the procedure of jury nullification. This doctrine is deep-rooted in American policy and by it is exercise has done more to arrest the development of tyranny than any other American policy. The United States Supreme Court’s original Chief Justice said, “The Jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy” (Jay). The power of the persons to void unjust laws is suppressed by the government in it is struggle for control. In the illfamed case, U.S. 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 forbidding the mentioning to the jury that “moral compulsion” 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 who says that underneath a 1998 California “snitch” policy “judges routinely order jurors to inform the court if a juror is not applying the law for the duration of deliberations” (Suprynowicz). Jurors found by the court not to be basing their views on the literal interpretation of the law are often substituted by alternates. If this policy becomes suppressed to a level that wholly prevents jury nullification then the final barrier to stop unjust laws with ordered legal routine is lost. The less one has to lose, the less one has to fear. And when one is stepped on, to the point of breaking, along the way, most will come to point where compliance’s gains yield less than resistance’s. Once the law becomes brutal and barbaric in it is policy or enforcement, enforcers, and those who live within it is bounds, become crooks in the eyes of God, moral reason, natural law, and international treaty. “The Justice 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 of murderous oppressions in compliance with directives of law issued by Adolph Hitler. The majority of the Nazi judges were found guilty at this trial including Franz Schlegelberger who provided lengthy rationalizations at his trial for his continued service as a Nazi judge even after it became evident to him the abhorrent reality of Nazi law. Despite Schlegelberger’s somewhat rational pleas, the Military Tribunal found that by settling his rulings in accordance to Nazi law, in spite of his preference versus Nazi atrocities versus humanity, these favorable rulings for the Nazi party in prior court rulings lent credence and support to the resulting depravity that lead the torture and deaths of political dissidents. Consequently, Schlegelberger was found guilty of war crimes and crimes versus humanity (Nuremburg). Henry David Thoreau chose to discerned himself from the state. He reasoned that it was improper for him to wait for modify and to in a patient manner pay homage to unjust laws. He found breaking the most unjust laws were necessary endeavors, resulting in his refusing to comply with the law forbidding assisting fugitive slaves and in his refusal to pay a mandatory tax employed to support what he viewed as an unjust war versus Mexico. When an unjust law’s effects lead to tyranny and wanton treatment of humane rights, it is the responsibility of just persons to actively protest all attempts of such tyranny. The more atrocious a regime, the less compliance it takes for one to become criminal by adhering to the law of such a regime. © 2005 – David Oppenheimer –Performance Impressions Works Cited Jay, John. Jury Rights. 1789. Fully Informed Jury Association of South Carolina. 6 Nov. 2005 King Jr., Dr. Martin Luther. Letter from a Birmingham Jail. 16 Apr. 1963. University of Pennslyvania. 6 Nov. 2005 www.africa.upen.edu The Nuremberg Trials: The Justice Trial. Ed. Doug Suprynowicz, Vin. The Undisputed Power of the Jury to Acquit. 2002. Loompanics. 6 Nov. 2005 [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm#U.S.A.%20v.%20ALSTOETTER%20ET%20AL%20 Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience” Resistance to Civil Government . 1849. A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston:Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. United States v. Dougherty. 1972. Maxwell School of |
