This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: re, the law is not static and where, if it is claimed to be oppressive or coercive, many effective channels for change are constantly available. Our courts do not have to apologize for their continued dedication to the liberty of all men. Our legislatures have regularly met the changing times and changing needs of the society with consideration for the unalienable rights of all. Even the Federal and state constitutions have been amended. Our law has not only been a guardian of freedom, but the affirmative agent for freedom. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ARRESTS OVERSHADOW CAUSE CHARLES R. DISALVO (PROFESSOR OF LAW, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY), COMMOWEAL, DECEMBER 1, 1989, P. 666. By contrast, anti-abortion disobedients are being arrested for trespass, disorderly conduct, and the violation of injunctions. None of these charges is directly related to the destruction of prenatal life. There is nothing inherent in the nature of any of these charges that relates toan abortion. Consequently, the public has some trouble relating the act of civil disobedience to the evil being protested. This weakness in anti-abortion disobedience is shared by environmental disobedients who are arrested for scaling power plant fences, and antimilitary disobedients who are arrested on burglary charges for entering military establishments. CIVIL DISOBEDIENTS NEVER SUCCEED IN CHANGING LAWS: COURTS CONDEMN THEM Tara Adams Ragone, Senior Articles Editor, Annual Survey of American Law, ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW, 1999, p. 311-312. Courts almost unanimously reject defendants' efforts to invoke the necessity defense in indirect civil disobedience political protest cases. As discussed above, courts generally do not excuse conduct that violates a law simply because the defendant wishes to express moral or political opposition to a law or policy. More specifically, in applying the four elements of the necessity defense to indirect civil disobedients, many courts find the defendants' evidence insufficient as a matter of law to establish the second and fourth elements of the necessity defense...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 11/20/2013.
- Fall '13