Um, The last part is complicated. Really speaking it is down to the skin, but in truth a lot of skin heads didn’t go that far.
The whole thing actually may have nothing to do with skinheads.
Schools in the UK often maintain standards of personal appearance along with the uniform. These often include rules about severe haircuts, hair colours, make-up levels, jewellery and if no uniform is set then the range of clothes you can wear. At my school a boys hair had to fall above his colour be un-dyed and be tidy.
These rules are a mixture of tradition, control, the fact that they lead to better behaved classes and about teaching fitting in to children. We are a reserved and repressed society and by teaching our children under these conditions it helps them to be a part of that society. It also achieves better grades, attendance, discipline and makes the school look better garnering better. This is wonderfully mocked in the Simpsons episode ‘Team Homer’ Where discipline and order at an all time high (the kids even walk between classes in step with one another and in silence) after uniform is introduced. However it stifles creativity and supposedly makes for repressed and dour children (all the better to fit into the subsequent society)
It’s not necessary to detail a whole moral basis to every law ever just to argue the point about whether somebody should be punished for breaking a law, even if the law was subsequently changed, or whether they should break a law to protest. Suffice it to say, humanity are not machines that rigidly follow rules. Reality’s much fuzzier than that, and we’re usually evolving towards the better. The laws are an attempt to get close to that. When they fail, they should be discarded, because they failed. And those who showed us how they failed should not be additionally punished.
Do you believe slavery (and to avoid splitting hairs, let’s define it as “US Civil War style slavery”, rather than economic slavery or where a person incurs a temporary debt they must pay off but isn’t passed on to their children) is wrong, regardless of whether there are laws against it, regardless of whether there are laws SUPPORTING it (sentencing runaway slaves to death, for instance)? If not, I don’t really care to know you (or continue discussing with you). If you do, then look, we’ve got a case where the law is clearly doing something wrong, and there I can point to where it should not be obeyed. I don’t have to come up with an ironclad system of rules and exceptions. It’s enough that ONE such incident exists. If that’s the case, then in a circumstance where that is the law, yes, I’m going to say it’s okay to break that law. And in every other such case.
Does that bring us to common law? Maybe a form of it, but that doesn’t prove your philosophy is right, even if your section of society believes “the law is the law and you should be punished for it even if the law changes”, any more than people who live in the time of slavery were right because they believed in it. In both cases, you’re morally behind the curve. Sorry if that’s insulting, to you, but I’m going to stand by it. If your point of view is that, by helping a runaway slave to escape, the person who did it should be punished… Or that those committing homosexual acts in a time period when that was illegal should be punished, even the tiniest bit (even to the degree of ‘having to answer a court case that will be thrown out’), even if it’s now legal… Or that, by not turning over a Jewish friend, somebody who lived in Nazi Germany should be punished, that you should have respected the law, that’s that… any of those, then you are morally behind the curve. If that’s not your point of view (and you seem to backtrack from it a lot, but not clearly, and usually relying on weird and usually uncodified appeals to some higher authority), go for it, and say so. If it is, I hope one day you catch up.
And after he was released and the laws repealed, did he demand to go back to jail and serve out the rest of his sentence? You believe that, if he was taken to trial, and either the legislature decided to revoke the laws, or the courts decided not to punish, he would have demanded the punishment anyway, because they were laws in place when he was arrested?
There’s a difference between ‘not running’ and supporting the whacked out “the law is the law” philosophy you’re espousing. Civil disobedience (which again, you’ve said is not appropriate, that people should work within the system to change it), can include breaking a law, going to jail for it to show everybody how stupid it is, in the hopes they’ll come to their senses. He didn’t go to jail because he believed he SHOULD be punished, because that was the law, he just happened to know he WOULD be punished, because that was the law.
Likely he didn’t know it was against the rules when he started, and after he was told… I’m sure he said something along the lines of “Okay, it’s against the rules… but, considering it’s charity, can’t you make an exception?” Maybe he didn’t. But, considering the school knew what he was planning (in advance, which means it’s hard to believe they didn’t also realize it was for charity) and let him know it was against the rules, rather than saying “Hey, just so you’re aware, this is normally against the rules, but we’re going to make an exception” (the thing a reasonable person would say), kind of ALREADY implies that permission wouldn’t be forthcoming if he asked, that they advocate the same sort of knee-jerk authoritarian rule-pushing that you do. I have no outright evidence for that, but it makes sense to me.
By the way: he took pledges from people before he was officially informed it was against the rules (it’s unclear if he was consciously aware while he was getting pledges, so I’m going to assume he wasn’t, even if he might have long ago read the rules). If he decided not to shave his head, he probably would have been breaking not just his word, but also a contract (verbal, if nothing else, maybe written). He was kind of in an impossible position, a position that could have been avoided by the principal being reasonable. He absolutely did the right thing, and the school did absolutely the wrong thing, IMHO.
Uh, what? And you call MY point of view hopelessly idealistic? That if only ALL people follow ALL laws, or face the consequences, we wouldn’t get dictatorships or authoritarian states?
Sorry, I live in the real world, where we DO get dictatorships and authoritarian states, many of them growing out of normal states by CHANGING laws through the legal system, rather than breaking ones that exist (Though, to be fair, the other way happens a lot too, maybe even more). And espousing “you should respect the law, no matter what it is” only empowers those authoritarians when it happens, because once they get ahold of the law, through WHATEVER means, they can use that built up belief in ‘the law is the law’ to keep their reigns of power and keep people from helping the people they oppress.
And indeed, I don’t think many here disagree that you should, generally, respect the law… all we’re saying is, if it’s a law that offends human dignity, it should be opposed. Or outright ignored. And yes, to your credit, you do require that a government act under it’s “just powers”, and that there needs to be ‘mechanisms in place to allow for change of the law outside of breaking it’… but what exactly are those powers, what mechanisms are sufficient to qualify? A homosexual living in a past Britain that has just criminalized homosexuality has no realistic hope of changing the law in a short period of time. So you believe he should respect the law and not practice homosexuality, just because people in general can alter the law? You’re advocating suffering for no good reason. And you want suffering on top of suffering, because you believe that even if the law DOES get repealed, anybody who broke it while it was in place STILL should be punished… maybe to a lesser degree, maybe a complete slap on the wrist, but they should still go through the legal process and be punished, right, because they broke a law at the time? I’ve asked you several times to disabuse me of this notion if it’s not the case, and you haven’t, but I’ll give you one more try because it’s so balls-out crazy. Without this notion (that you should still be punished even if the law changes), your point of view is a little rigid, and still leads to a lot of suffering, but not a bureaucratic evil nightmare.
(you later edited it to 5)
I’m sorry, I’m not sure which countries you’re referring to, or even how “this system” is defined. Because “this system”, if it includes things like “if you committed a crime, and what you did is no longer illegal, you should still be punished,” is not the case in Canada, at least. Jury nullification is also allowed in Canada (the lawyers can’t ARGUE for it, but it’s allowed and can be a factor in courts). And, my (admittedly limited, I’ve spent too much time on this already) research suggests that jury nullification does happen in the UK, too, and I haven’t come across any reference to, say, homosexuals punished, after the laws changed, for homosexual acts that still occurred before it was decriminalized.
In any event, you should notice that I said “a notably higher standard of living”, not somewhat higher on a freedom index that has a high priority on economic freedom rather than personal liberties (assuming you’re using the same world freedom index I was). Notably higher.
You think your common law makes it impossible to pass extremely restrictive and unfair laws that are harmful to a minority group?
How cute. Again, you call me idealistic, but this takes the take.
My philosophy punishes nobody yours doesn’t. It punishes some people less… those people who broke an unjust law, for example, assuming you still insist they should be punished, rather than the law itself being removed.
I think that’s an interesting point when you brought up how you think my side “harms the law”. I hope you won’t mind if we wrap it up a little more comprehensively, and say “harms society”, and use that as a basis to attempt to summarize our differing perspectives. Tell me if I get anything wrong:
We both agree that, in general, breaking the law harms society.
Your point of view seems to be that breaking an UNJUST law (in a generally fair and democratic society, in ways we won’t bother to define) is also harmful to society, and should also be punished, maybe to a lesser degree, but punished, even if the law is subsequently changed. If breaking a law highlights how stupid a law is, okay, point taken, but you should still be suffering the consequences, because the law is the law.
Mine is that an unjust law is ITSELF harmful to society, and is effectively a crime by the state against the individuals it applies to, even within a generally fair and democratic society. If the law gets changed, anybody who broke it while it was in place is a victim, not a perpetrator: the law had no business existing in the first place, it being unjust, and the society being fair. Those who break an unjust law that has not been changed, should not be punished (they almost certainly WILL be, but they shouldn’t be), it is the law itself that should be changed. If breaking a law highlights how stupid a law is, we should change it ASAP and not punish the person who brought that to our attention (assuming they didn’t also commit other crimes that remain justly illegal).
I’m still happier with my view. Even if I may not be able to define exactly what constitutes an unjust law in advance.
So I wrote an answer out in full to the body of your text but it mostly pointed out you misconstruing or representing my argument, taking it outside of pre-detailed parameters or using part of my argument out of context to challenge it when the subsequent line already address’ this. However your last bit was on point so I slimmed my argument pre-that down to this paragraph and then addressed only that bit (the rest was basically all straw man, though I fully accept that this may well have been due to me misrepresenting my argument. The only points I will still make are that jury nullification is something they are told is not within their powers prior to the case and if prosecution makes a case for it it is grounds for a mistrial and that the Freedom Index I used is one of those in highest regard currently and does not regard economic freedom as a significant factor for freedom, the Fraser Institute Freedom Index). Oh and that I never said that common law or following the law would stop a dictatorship, rather that following all laws prevents a dictatorship from being possible in the UK because between our common law and a few old statutes a number of liberties and systems are required that cannot be altered without first breaking laws, these prevent such action. (They could of course break these first [and thus not be operating in my system] but even if they did that would nullify the application of my argument as it would be the laws of a government that doesn’t represent the people and so they would have no contract with these laws). It is not demonstrable when you quote a single line out of context, but read the whole lot and that is what I said.
Actually this is pretty close (and the only part of our argument so far that I feel has been conducive to good disccussion [including my contribution]), but missing the underlying reason.
I stated that it harms the law for good reason. Your premiss for me is correct but for the purpose that society is governed successfully by having a stable law and the knowledge that if something is criminal you do not do it. The law isn’t a real thing it is a concept. De value the law by making it flexible in some categories and you make it less substantial. To the edges of society this is problematic.
I understand your claim but feel it lacks attention to three areas. One in Britain we are mostly common law, that means that most of these laws are based upon the public verdict that the law is just anyway. Two the law in Britain can be opposed by other means. You ask what about those who have to go without in the mean time if a law is unjust, but what about the victims created if a law is just and in the mean time many freely break it because they feel it is unjust? Three it leaves account for which laws should be broken in the hands of people who need these laws to exist to stop them performing these acts. If we could trust them to get it right we wouldn’t have the laws.
Now let us say that only ‘victimless’ crimes can be broken in this way
Just a few to consider. Some are ‘victimless’ and some are those which the perpetrators usually regard as victimless:-
1.Crimes with no victim unless it goes wrong. I.e. is speeding criminal if you don’t have an accident? What about drink driving? How do you establish this category as illegal when the majority of times there is no victim and actually the majority seem to break this law?
2.Cannabis smoking at home? And by that logic Cannabis selling? Whether you agree or not the figures for the general public in the UK swing from 70% in favour of legalisation or lower sentences to 70% in favour of increasing sentencing (and an even higher percentage of magistrates). By your rules many people would break this law believing it to be unjust and then be made criminals for doing it.
3.Piracy. Most here believe it is victimless but the major corporations, judiciary, government (and according to the mainstream British media) the people disagree.
4.Heroine taking? it is victimless in that the victim is yourself and you volunteer, it is not in that it often leads to crimes to support the habit.
5.Heroine sales. If taking is victimless…
6. Crimes that are not victimless but which those that perpetrate them often see as victimless. e.g defrauding a)the government or b)insurance companies or c) those who are reimbursed by insurance companies so they lose no money
7. Crimes of dehumanisation. Crimes like rape, slavery, racial abuse and spousal abuse typically happen on the grounds that “they aren’t equal to me”. The perpetrators often see the ‘victims’ as lesser beings and so do not see them as victims but at best as being deserving and normally seeing themselves as being just and enforcing justice.
The time is nearly out and given the course of the comments prior to where I started responding, I will not respond further to you but leave it open for your rebuttal and close. I do not expect I have changed your opinion any but it has been enlightening and while I do not feel myself turned towards the alternate system I am investigating with a magistrate friend any allowances makable/ tested in the British system. While I do not see it as a functional system for law where in a world where law is necessary in the first place I am trying to develop a system of law (theoretically) that allows for that but does not endorse those with differing morals from testing laws that should not be broken.
.
