.jpg) |
| "Cosette" (1862) by Emile Antoine Bayard |
When the undocumented Indians are arrested in Fargo for using fraudulent social security cards, Soni thinks it important to note that economic desperation had driven them to commit this crime (239)
Under what conditions does desperation justify breaking the law? To what extent should it mitigate any punishments given to the perpetrator?
Only answer this question after you've read part five, chapter four and all of the preceding chapters.
This is a difficult question because most answers would make the law subjective. Which it cannot be. The picture for this question is a painting based off of a book called Les Miserables. In this book a man named John Valjean broke a window and stole a loaf of bread to save a starving family, when he was caught he was sent to jail for nineteen years. This seems like a disproportionate punishment for his crime, and Valjean did it for what would be considered good reasons. However, even though there are some crimes done for good reasons and we think they should not be punished, that cannot be allowed. If decisions were made about which crimes to punish there would be not justice. I do believe that justification should effect the punishment so that situations such as stealing one loaf of bread to keep a family alive is paid for with community service and not nineteen years of prison, but crimes are crimes and they that must be dealt with, otherwise we have no foundation for our society.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there are many potential situations where where desperation should mitigate punishments and where desperation justifies breaking the law. The reason I believe this assertion to be the case is because laws are not necessarily morals and are not inherently flawless (after all it is humans who make them). Although countries generally try to make laws for the sake of peace for the people, there are many situations where laws may not be necessarily in line with modern day values. Even in the case of the United States, there may be specific instances where it may be justified. If, for example, a surgeon had to speed to get to the hospital after getting paged in the middle of the night because a patient needed immediate medical attention, I would think that is justified.
DeleteThere are conditions where breaking the law is the only option such as providing for your family, protecting the innocent, and self preservation in dire conditions. While breaking the law is the only option in certain instances, the law must still be enforced, while some crimes committed for valiant or reasons of protecting the innocent are deemed honorable, they should not mitigate consequences entirely. If we mitigated punishments completely because some crimes were committed for good reason then there would be no need for a justice system, just a judge and a jury. We have so many laws and codes of conduct for reasons and some of those reasons are for justifying unlawful acts when desperate, this is partly why America is such a beautiful land, but the law of the land must be upheld at all times, even when desperate acts that break the law are emotionally justifiable.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with your point. There are certain conditions where breaking the law in their situation was the only means to protect and provide for their family. I believe their reasoning should play a key role in their punishment. The laws they broke were for the purpose of providing for their loved ones and did not physically harm or necessarily affect anyone else. The places they were working were low on laborers and therefore did not put others out of a job. If the choice is breaking the law in a situation where no one is negatively affected or abiding and leaving your family to fend for themselves, in my mind, the right answer is clear.
DeleteThis is a very interesting question. I think this is less about when it is ok to break the law and rather when it is ok to revolt. These people have been lied to, stolen from, treated like trash, and are in constant fear of losing everything. These people have been stretched to their absolute limit and they have every right to fight back. The question however is who do they fight? Who do they place the blame on? Who do they release their anger and desperation upon?. It is my biggest belief that your voice can only go so far before it must result in action and violence. The government never listened to their cries for help, they never gave aid when it was needed.
ReplyDeleteWhat these people should have done is gone after these companies and used their numbers to take them down. I know it sounds extreme to react with acts of violence but violence was their only choice. It is my firm belief that the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms for the purpose of tearing down these corrupt people. Now I also want to express that when I mean acts of violence I mean acts of violence directed to those who have hurt them. Not on civilians or bystanders but the corrupt officials. What these people did is what they needed to survive.