## Failure to uphold the law...for the right reasons?

Post by mikeybound » Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:30 pm

During the aftermath of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, there's the story of a man who was trapped and about to burn to death. When someone granted his request to be shot so he wouldn't burn to death, the shooter turned himself in to the nearest police officer and was immediately released. Also, when Memorial Hospital was running low on supplies after Hurricane Katrina and everyone was trapped by water, four patients were killed by personnel. After being charged with murder by the district attorney, a grand jury dropped their charges. And then there's this...
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0rI5Hx0b8
I assume cases like this aren't restricted to killings or other such heinous acts. What do you people think is involved with deciding a crime in the letter of the law should be overlooked? I'm interested in what those with law degrees have to say concerning legal flexibility.

### Re: Failure to uphold the law...for the right reasons?

Post by Lake Lover » Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:49 am

Interesting! This is a little off your subject, I realize.
I remember reading the essay, "On the Duty of Civil DIsobedience", by Henry David Thoreau. In it he writes something like this:
' That government is best, which governs least of all, and when they are ready for it that is the type of government man will have. '
His premise was that there are many laws which are instituted not so much for the protection of individual rights, but to protect special interests; that such laws are inherently evil; and that it is the duty of good men to disobey such laws; but that they must be willing to accept the injustice of penalty imposed for such disobedience. He was tossed in jail at least once, I think for refusing to pay a poll tax?
Thoreau's book, "Walden, or Life in the Woods" got me hooked on him when I was about 13.

### Re: Failure to uphold the law...for the right reasons?

Post by Lake Lover » Sun Mar 23, 2014 10:21 am

Take the case where one witnesses a stranger committing a serious crime. The witness intervenes and as a result injuries are suffered by all three -- the criminal, the victim and the witness. What are the rights and remedies of each party?

### Re: Failure to uphold the law...for the right reasons?

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:02 pm

There may be instances where kidnapping a child is the justified thing to do, but I find it difficult to believe many such instances exist and i certainly do not believe it is at all likely to be the case here. There are other, legal ways to resolve a child abuse situation. Calling the Department of human Services and citing child abuse is usually a good way to get a quick response; i know of cases where this was done just out of spite but they acted quickly anyway. how much more so with a good reason, if there really was any actual abuse? I saw nothing in the report that indicates this was ever even attempted.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Failure to uphold the law...for the right reasons?

Post by mikeybound » Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:29 pm

This is true, although I believe the sentence here simply doesn't fit the crime. Perhaps different degrees are required.
Regardless, I was talking about real cases where people are exempt from legal action because of remarkable circumstances. This is a case where I feel it could've applied. Does anyone know of any others?

### Re: Failure to uphold the law...for the right reasons?

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:50 pm

Actually, yeah. Does the name Doctor Kevorkian ring any bells? I think he was onto something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Failure to uphold the law...for the right reasons?

Post by mikeybound » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:11 pm

> Jason Toddman wrote:Actually, yeah. Does the name Doctor Kevorkian ring any bells? I think he was onto something.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

Except he was circumventing and actively challenging existing law. I'm referring more to unforeseen consequences forcing someone to break a law, and that illegal action being recognized as the right choice at the moment.

### Re: Failure to uphold the law...for the right reasons?

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:44 pm

Actually, the difference between the two rather eludes me at the moment, except that Dr. Kevorkian's choice was hotly debated. Seemed like it was relevant and worth mentioning in any case.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Failure to uphold the law...for the right reasons?

Post by mikeybound » Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:14 pm

Hmmm. I suppose that's the difference I was referring to. The public or individuals involved recognizing an illegal action as the right thing to do at the time.

### Re: Failure to uphold the law...for the right reasons?

Post by skybird137 » Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:12 am

The Crown Prosecution Service has a concept of "Not in the public interest"
This means that they can apply discretion involving any case if necessary, so that it won't even bring charges.
In England and Wales, it is illegal for two under sixteen year olds to even kiss, let alone have intimate contact. However, this is one of the areas where there is wide discretion, as the laws are actually there to prevent "Exploitation of a minor", the idea being that exploitation is hard to define legally, but "People know it when they spot it."
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...
http://skybird137.deviantart.com