[dublinben]

>they are criminals

They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior.

Why should they have to "make a choice" and make "better decisions" when they don't believe what they've done is wrong?

[paulhauggis]

Bernie Madoff didn't think he was doing anything wrong either. Why should he have to make a choice?

The only reason you are making this comment is because you don't believe drugs (and drug dealing) should be illegal.

[aunty_helen]

Rosa Parks didn't think she was doing anything wrong either. Why should she have to make a choice? The only reason you are making this comment is because you believe drugs (and drug dealing) should be illegal.

Or is it different because fast forward to today, looking back those laws were obviously wrong?

[icebraining]

There's nothing incoherent in only supporting people who commit crimes you believe shouldn't be crimes.

In fact, as others have pointed out, doing so is even legally recognized in the form of jury nullification.

[Crito]

> "Bernie Madoff didn't think he was doing anything wrong either."

Do you have a source for that? I would have expected that he knew that what he was doing was wrong, but did not care because he was greedy. Disagreeing with a law and disregarding the law are two separate concepts. People often do one without doing the other.

His apology that he delivered before sentencing suggests that he knew it was wrong. Of course it would be incredibly foolish to take such an apology at face value, but it would be interesting if there are any statements made by him at other times that contradict this.

[malka]

Madoff stole people money. These guy entered a mutually approved transaction between adults, where both side are usually happy with the outcome.

[Lawtonfogle]

Bernie Madoff harmed non-consenting individuals.

[dogecoinbase]

They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior.

They should probably still accept the reality of the punishment, at least until the law is modified. Disobeying a law for moral reasons is only the first half of civil disobedience.

[Lawtonfogle]

That's a view I would see nothing more than government propaganda. 'If you don't like the law, then you should break it and peacefully accept any punishments.' Should we tell homosexuals in some areas of the world that they should go ahead and draft up their wills and turn themselves to be executed because they should accept their punishment for their crime?

[coverup]

You seem to be assuming the government wants people to break its laws, so it gets to punish people.

It costs the government money to put people in prison; not only the cost of their food, shelter, supervision, etc. but also the cost of removing a taxpayer from the workforce. Furthermore, a democratically elected government that is increasingly imprisoning more and more of its people is not likely to remain popular. It is in the government's best interest to only enforce laws that the majority of people are happy to obey.

Civil disobedience is a technique that protesters who think a law is unjust use to take advantage of this interest. By deliberately disobeying the unjust law and accepting the punishment for it, they help put pressure on legislators to change it. The government prefers a situation in which no laws are ever broken--that's why it makes such an extensive effort to incentivize citizens not to break them--but in the case where enough people feel it is in their best interest to break the law even with the punishment that comes with doing so, as people who use civil disobedience do, then the law must change if it is to reflect the will of the people.

The example you gave re: homosexuals/death penalty is extreme, but follows the same principles, as long as that government is democratically elected. Most democracies don't get to the point where they're throwing the death penalty around willy-nilly though, thank God.

[washadjeffmad]

While the amount charged to the public (and the deleterious effects of liberal incarceration on communities) is real, the costs cited may be exaggerated. The "Kids for Cash" kickback system comes to mind. They can turn a profit.

It isn't the majority of all people that matters, just the most consistent individual groups of voters. And felons can't vote. How do you disenfranchise and silence entire communities of people? Disproportionately charge them with felonies. It's obviously broken.

Civil disobedience makes sitting ducks of powerless people. Idealism doesn't change laws, or political culture, or us-vs-them mentalities, or nepotism, or corruption, or revolving doors. Law makers change laws, and not easily. Occupy changed what exactly? Maybe it influenced the adoption of Cop Cams a little, but it had little effect on banking practices, and that system affects pretty much everyone.

Change isn't hopeless, but it doesn't work the way you'd hope it would.

[Crito]

People with power almost invariably attended a history class or two sometime in their lives, and remember what can happen to the Marie Antoinette's and Nicolae Ceaușescu's of this world.

If you were in power, and you feared civil unrest, it would be in your best interest to establish civil disobedience as the most severe form of legitimate protest. The idea that dissidents should not use violence but should instead submit themselves to arrest is very convenient for those who already have power.

In public schools across America, civil rights activists who advocated non-violent civil disobedience are lionized, while civil rights activists who advocated for techniques that did not involve martyrdom are either ignored or vilified. The first are given credit for the relative success of the civil rights movement, while the role of the later is severely downplayed. I do not believe that this is an accident.

[coverup]

You and washadjeffmad both make very important points. Thank you!

[Lawtonfogle]

>It costs the government money to put people in prison; not only the cost of their food, shelter, supervision, etc.

Except when being used as a talking point to stir a base, they do not care. If anything, their budgeting practice of use it or lose it creates a desire to spend as much as they can.

And as the other commenters have pointed out, it is very very beneficial for the most virtuous form of protest to be 'break the law and accept punishment'.

[kohanz]

... and how well does a society function if everyone gets to decide for themselves what rules they follow?

[moskie]

You're describing reality. When was the last time you jay walked?

[lmm]

Not a crime where I live. Some places run on civil law rather than the ad-hoc patchwork of common law.

[lurkinggrue]

I haven't in decades.

But then I live in Southern California and nobody walks here.

[spacemanmatt]

How does a society function when only a few make the rules for the many?

http://gawker.com/study-the-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-1563363760

[JoshTriplett]

As long as interactions between people are governed by the consent of all parties rather than unilaterally by the rules of one: pretty darn well. If what you're doing only affects you, only you ought to have jurisdiction.

[Karunamon]

Considering that police and normal people do this every single day, I'd say pretty well.

[thejrk]

It doesn't matter if you disagree or not, it IS illegal.

[jjbiotech]

Here's a hypothetical situation that will give you some perspective to consider:

Eating unhealthy food with a high fat and sugar content in your country is highly illegal. In this hypothetical country you live in, the offence of eating unhealthy food is a felony and punishable by time in prison. This law makes sense: It's for the good of the people. It's a victimless crime, but the war on unhealthy food needs to be enforced or else society will become so fat the entire system will collapse. People will be gorging themselves on big macs instead of showing up for work. Think about the children! The kids will get so fat they'll be unable to find a partner, and won't be able to get a job. People will become addicted to unhealthy food and permanently damage their bodies, causing them to die early.

We need to ban unhealthy food, and throw all of the law breakers in prison like they deserve.

It doesn't matter if you disagree or not, it IS illegal.

[lmm]

Damn straight. Where do I sign up?

[icebraining]

You can't, that's illegal.

[Lawtonfogle]

Legally, in some places homosexuality is punished by death. The law is the law, so should they just shut up and be executed?

[ianstallings]

That doesn't apply here and you know it. This is the US justice system and I get tired of the red herring bullshit.

[Lawtonfogle]

The US law where homosexuals were locked in cages less than 15 years ago, where their are still homosexuals in cages and under other punishments for actions that would have been legal if they had been heterosexuals (one example a child molester in Georgia who would have been protected under Romeo and Juliet laws had the young party been a girl instead of a boy). We still have a justice system where owning certain plants can get you years if not decades locked in a cage. If you smell any BS around here, I'd think the natural source would be the legal system.

[ianstallings]

Listen we are talking about two different things and that's my point. I don't care about moral judgements. This is about reality - if there is a law on the books, right or wrong, and you knowingly break that law, will you be surprised when law enforcement comes after you? This is about personal responsibility. You make a decision and you pay the consequences, right or wrong.