was against the traditional views and unjust laws, which discriminated against him and his fellow people. He felt that the only way that these unjust laws and traditional beliefs would ever change would be by protestesting. He also felt that without protest the laws and traditions would remain the same forever. Along with encouraging protest, King's letter was also a justification of his actions. By taking the time to answer his critics (or persecutors, as he is in prison) with patience, logic and intelligence, as opposed to retaliating, King was also able to justify his actions.
First, without civil resisters, the will of the people is weak and simply a stew of thoughts. A civil protest unifies public opinion. When one stands up for himself and violates a policy against authority, others with similar backgrounds and beliefs will undoubtedly question the fairness of the policy. Thoreau asserts, “if ten men only – ay, if one honest man in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold saves, were actually to withdraw from his copartnership and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America” (186). Thoreau implies that as long as one moral person can stand up for himself, others will follow and eventually force change.
He tries to support the fact that “(they) had no alternative except to prepare for direct action,” However he is able to effectively utilize several logical examples of evidence to help prove his point. King is able to use historical evidence to justify his argument. When King refers to how the Alabama clergymen said that even though their actions were peaceful they must be convicted because those actions brought on violence, he responds with a number of contradictions to this statement. First King gives a hypothetical scenario to contradict the statement, “Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?” King also gives an allusion of Socrates to continue to prove his point, “Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated he act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock?” King is explaining that their direct action was never intended to be violent and should never be condemned as such. The purpose of the march was to express their discord in a civilized manner.
Probably no American is more celebrated for his views of law, tyranny and the right to engage in civil dissobedience than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” Martin Luther King, Jr. said, You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
As mentioned earlier, the Right of Self-Representation is this right to represent oneself as Pro Sea. Presently, courts at all levels of the Criminal Justice system require that the defendant be aware and understand the disadvantages of representing one’s self as most people not practicing law, will not be aware of certain defenses that can facilitate their case. A person going Pro Sea will have to sign a waiver or
Even though the accused are thought to be evil they like everyone else have constitutional rights before they are arrested. A crime is defined as “a wrong against society or the public interest” (Davenport, 2009, p. 38). Most of society thinks of a crime as breaking any law that was put into place to protect the people by people and the government. There are many different
On the other hand, bystanders in distinguished works that exemplify silence and un-humanlike characteristics are townspeople in “38 People who saw Murder”, Michela in the novel “In the Company of Angels, and Seamus Heaney in the poem “Punishment”. These characters resist the human rights by allowing others to get hurt, sometimes even themselves, without defending their beliefs. The human rights allow people to stand up for what they believe in no matter the damage it will eventually cause them. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in “A Letter from a Birmingham Jail” exemplifies what it means to stand up for oneself no matter the consequences. King defended his belief of human rights for the betterment of society.
We must understand that conflict is a given occurrence- in our communities, houses, work places, and throughout the world. Although, conflict is not always a bad thing, only as long as it is peaceful conflict. Destructive violence is evitable and it may possibly lead to imprisonment and eventually death. In a letter from Birmingham Jail 16 April, 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” By defying the unjust laws, one could make a greater impact onto their peers and surrounding community. Having the courage to stand up for what one’s conscious says is right, is a pure attribute worth striving for.
However this is a law that needs to be defended as in current times, one really needs to take care of what he/say is saying as just by simply speaking your mind at the wrong time can have serious consequences. An example will be our very infamous leader of the ANC Youth League Julius Malema defending his actions of what he said about the older members of the ANC and our president Jacob Zuma saying that he believes in freedom of expression and that our Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression. Julius Malema believes he was just voicing his opinion of the ANC and will not be a “robot” underneath the dictator Jacob Zuma. He believes that what he said was not said as a means to cause harm to President Zuma and therefore he should have his suspension from the ANC lifted so