Civil Disobedience is defined as "a public non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies." The term 'civil disobedience' was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1848 essay describing his refusal to pay a state poll tax. There have been many famous acts of civil disobedience including the US Civil Rights Movement that included Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., the Boston Tea Party, resistance to Apartheid in South Africa, anti-abortion protests, environmental and animal rights, and the list continues. The question is can civil disobedience be a potentially justifiable breach of law that in turn brings about a social change for the greater good? …show more content…
Civil disobedience is usually displayed with the intent to attract public attention which further encourages disrespect for the law. A justifiable act of civil disobedience as was seen in the Rosa Parks incidence often times serves to inform and educate the public about an issue. Civil disobedience can be regarded as defensible when compared with ordinary offenses or other forms of protest especially those involving military action or violence. Most people when being involved in a civil disobedience episode display a willingness to accept punishment by carrying out their protest. In democratic societies, the act of disobedience is not a crime in itself. The crime usually involves disturbing the peace, trespassing, damaging property, etc. Sometimes judges can be open to not punishing an offender or punishing them differently from other people who breach the law based on the features of their actions. By accepting punishment, disobedients are asserting that they are different from ordinary offenders and it carries much strategic value. Martin Luther King, Jr. observes 'If you confront a man who has been cruelly misusing you and say "Punish me if you will; I do not deserve it, but I will accept it, so that the world will know I am right and you are wrong," then you wield a powerful and just weapon.' (Washington, 1991, 348). Willingness to accept legal consequences has