As kids, we were always reminded that we had to follow the rules of society, just not in such big words. Frank Trippett in his article, A Red Light for Scofflaws, states that nowadays law-abiding citizens are breaking the law to categorize themselves as cool. He first lists instances that breaking the law seems normal, such as speeding or littering. He supports his stance furthermore by stating the saying “You’re a fool if you obey the rules” is the slogan on everyone’s mind these days. The author creates a concerned tone for the readers. The author says that law-and-order is thought be affected by violent crime, when in fact it is normal, everyday citizens that break them. In this case, the author is right, as citizens encourage citizens to break the law and normal citizens are harassed into breaking the law without even realizing it. The author’s argument has the stronger point to be made, but there are those out there that could argue against his claim. For example, one could argue that one only breaks the law in important situations, so it does not happen often. This …show more content…
For example, many of the friendliest citizens break the speeding law when they witness someone else get away with speeding. This shows that if one citizen speeds, another one will want to also speed since the first citizen did not get caught. Another reason that supports Trippett’s argument is that many normal people are harassed into breaking the law and do not even realize it. For example, if you are going the speed limit and someone honks their horn at another citizen, their natural instinct is to go faster, which would break the law. This shows that a citizen will follow the law, but those around him will not and influence him to break it. These reasons and more make Trippett’s argument stronger in structure, leading to be being better
Imagine yourself throwing a plastic ring from a six pack of soda on the ground. Next, picture that same piece of plastic that was thrown on the ground wrapped around a sea otters neck, and it being trapped. Makes you want to pick up that plastic ring, doesn’t it? Frank Trippett in his article, “A Red Light for Scofflaws” argues that social order is broken when citizens who normally would obey the law become scofflaws. The author starts by explaining which laws he believes that are most broken everyday.
What seems like such a miniscule crime to commit, could potentially turn into a very big one. Additionally, with more and more people thinking it is perfectly okay to break minor laws, it eventually gets out of hand and becomes an even bigger problem than it would have been had everyone followed them to begin with. For example, if one person throws a small piece of trash along the road, it does not seem like that big of a problem but when that one person’s trash is added to everyone else’s littering, it really puts it in perspective. All together, if someone is not abiding by the law, it is a
Frank Trippett, in his passage “A Red Light For Scofflaws”, is arguing that the people are not following the minor laws because they think it is not important, he support his argument by first explaining how the people are breaking laws and not even thought that it was wrong, he continues by showing how the careless of the people could threaten the people’s lives. The author wrote in critical tone for the Americans who are breaking the minor laws. The author’s argument is right, people should take the minor laws more seriously because people could lose their lives and make other people life in dangerous too. The people do not think that these laws are important, and they are not that big deal because it will not make any different and will not effect anyone, for example, if the government decide to change the speeding in certain area and make it lower, some people will think that this is wrong because they got used to a certain system and they do not want to change it.
Dr. King brings up the anxiety that willingness to break laws can cause. He decides next to answer the question, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” He feels that, “there are just laws, and there are unjust laws” (Letter from Birmingham Jail 2). Dr. King explains first that, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God” (Letter from Birmingham Jail 2). He next explains that, “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (Letter from Birmingham Jail 3).
But this shows the book’s central conflict between personal codes of ethics. It makes us question if society’s laws must always be followed and what circumstances garner breaking the rules. I personally believe that when you do not agree that the laws pay respect to everyone’s equal opportunity to live out their own good life, you have the responsibility to change it. Just as Martin Luther King once wrote, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (Letter).
King makes it clear that there are specific circumstances that advocate towards civil disobedience. Keeping this in mind, it is essential that citizens are given the opportunity to be involved in legal matters, such as laws and defying the law in an effort to improve the state. However, in the event that civil disobedience is necessary King emphasizes that citizens must comprehend the difference between just and unjust laws, as well as partake in disobedience through civil means. On the other hand, Socrates believes no laws that are worth breaking. His reasonings support his overall idea that an unjust law or act, does not defend retaliating through unjustly means.
Many Americans break the laws of California and other states everyday. Frank Trippetts argument is that many people who say that they do not break the law are actually breaking in a way that no one can find out about. Frank Trippett supports his claim by showing examples of different ways of breaking the law. I disagree with the author's argument because it is unrealistic to not pay your taxes with the code that is given to the United States government, people polluting the world with loud noise, or speeding down the highway. Some people who disagree with his views will say that it is okay to break the law if no one sees it or hears about about it.
To sum up, we should not follow the Law because we don’t apply to
There are many theories that suggest that crime is constructed socially, or is a product of the society in which the crime is committed. One such theory, proposed by Robert Merton, is known as strain theory. While strain theory is a useful model for explaining how societal values can drive people to commit crimes, it has several flaws and does not focus on how laws are made and how this contributes to the formation of crime. While Merton suggests that laws are created from consensus within a society, it will be argued that strain theory can also support the idea that laws are a “product of conflict” (Hagan 5). Strain theory is founded on the idea that the goals of a society and the accepted means of achieving said goal causes strain that can
Everyone should have the right to break the law to prevent someone or something from being hazardous to a society. The previous statement can be justified throughout history by the actions that have been taken by certain political leaders. In the dramatic play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, the character Brutus takes matters into his own hands when he murders the great Julius Caesar. “People, and Senators, be not affrighted.
Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.
States have laws to maintain peace and safety among people and provide ways to resolve issues that arise among individuals. As a citizen of a state you are expected to obey all laws. An environment without laws will cause the typical exercises of life to be affected by the chaos. In Plato’s book, Crito, Socrates believes you should always obey the law. You are obligated to obey unjust laws because you tacitly agree to obey the laws, people have different opinions what is just or unjust, and there are many consequences when disobeying a law.
Society within the boundary unites against those outside the boundary, therefore strengthening the solidarity of the society. According to sociologists, crime is a function of inequality. The more inequality seen in a society, the more crime
Crime offers a way in which poor people can obtain material goods they cannot attain through legal means. Often, threat or force helps them acquire even more goods, encouraging them to commit more violent acts such as robbery and rape. Thus, poverty increases crime
What I will explain to you in this article will, how we are connected with the law and I hope, make you see sense in the importance of our laws in the society we live in. To be against the importance of laws in our society would show one to be ignorant and naïve. I encounter the law on a daily basis when I am driving. I have to follow the speed limit of each road, I have to signal before changing lanes, my vehicle must be in good condition in order to safely drive and I must obey all road signs as they are set in place to ensure the safety of everybody.