Breaking the Law – Is it Ever OK? I Say YES!

Have you ever deliberately broke the law?  Mea Culpa!  Mea Culpa!  I have many times in my life.  I grew up with an aversion to rules and a definite bias towards the idea that “rules were made to be broken.”  Sometimes this has gotten me into trouble but other times it has been something I actually feel proud of.  You see, I do believe that there are stupid and even evil rules and laws.

Lets start with the most obvious as an example of laws that were not only bad but evil.  In respect to slavery there are many such examples.  Let’s take just two that make my point.  The very first concerns the legalization of slavery.  Early slave laws recognizing the practice in the US were written well before the constitution or the US was a nation.  Massachusetts is considered the first colony to recognize slavery as a legal institution in 1641.  Most of the other colonies soon passed laws legalizing the practice.  Once the colonies became a country and formed a constitution many Federal laws were passed to condone slavery, and these were supported by the Supreme Court.  Two such laws that are notorious today are the “Fugitive Slave Act of 1793” and the “Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.”

Who today could support such laws?  Laws that treated individuals of another color as little better than animals.  People (slaves) could be beaten, lashed, chained and bred not to mention worked to death so that some people could profit from their labor.  Would it have been wrong to say that these laws were acts of evil?  Should we obey laws that are clearly evil?

For my second example, we turn to Nazi Germany and its Reign of Terror against the Jewish population of Europe.  Over the centuries there have been many laws passed by European countries demonstrating an overt prejudice against the Jewish population.  However, the Nazis took this prejudice to new levels of persecution and eventually genocide.

The first significant law enacted by Hitler that targeted the Jewish population in Germany was the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” passed on April 7, 1933.  This law was designed to isolate and exclude Jews from participation in public life.  It banned them from holding government jobs or participating in professions such as doctors, teachers, and lawyers.

Much like we are now seeing in the USA today (albeit for a different purpose), there was a progression of laws in Germany to escalate the violence and discrimination against Jews.  The first laws seemed to be ones that people could live with but eventually they led to laws that were so evil that even Hitler was afraid of them being recorded.  I refer to Hitler’s “Final Solution.”  There may not have been any recorded laws, but the facts of the Holocaust and Genocide cannot be denied.  Eichmann claimed at his trial that he was only following orders to expedite in the most efficient manner the extermination of every Jew in Europe and Russia.

Could you live in a country like Germany was in the 1930’s and 40’s? What if we started deporting legal American citizens from the USA to prison camps in South America or Asia?  Would you obey such orders?

When we first came down here to Arizona in 2010, there was a great deal of discrimination directed against legal citizens who were of Mexican or Spanish Heritage.  One infamous law was the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070), enacted in 2010, which included a provision that allowed police to question people about their immigration status if there was “reasonable suspicion” they were in the country unlawfully.  They were obliged to “Show me your Papers” and Mexican American citizens were often profiled and stopped because they “looked” Mexican.  A friend of mine who lives in Tucson and is a musician wrote a song called “Show me Your Papers” which spoofed the law with some very humorous lyrics.

There were other laws passed in Arizona making it a crime to help immigrants coming over the border who might be undocumented.  The problem with these laws is that many immigrants legal and illegal do not speak English.  How in the hell are you going to ask them if they have papers?

One day about ten years ago, I was driving in a rural part of Arizona through the desert when I saw a young man hitchhiking on the side of the road.  I stopped to see where he was going.  I asked him if he needed some water since it was a very hot day.  He nodded his head yes and I gave him a bottle of water.  Down here you are stupid if you do not keep extra water in your car.  He then handed me a piece of paper.  On it was a hand drawn map that showed some directions and a motel at the end of the arrows on the map.  I asked him where he wanted to go.  He simply pointed at the motel.  The name of the motel was on the map, and I knew where it was.

I was on my way home and it was only about three miles from where I lived.  I motioned for him to jump in my car.  He climbed in and off we went with no conversation since it was obvious he did not speak English.  I pulled up to the motel and he got out of my car.  He turned around and in his hand, he held a bunch of fifty-dollar US bills.  He handed one to me.  I shook my head and said, “Gracias but no thank you.”  He smiled, left my car for the motel and we both waved goodbye as I drove off.

Did I break the law?  Was he an “illegal” immigrant?  Should I have just left him on the side of the road in 100 + temperatures?  Should I have driven him to the police department?  Frankly,  I don’t give a damn what the law said back then.  I saw someone who needed help, and I helped him.  Christians are fond of saying “WWJD”, meaning What would Jesus Do?  If you are at all familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan in the New Testament, you know what Jesus would do.

There are good laws and there are bad laws.  Pope Pius the XII once said that he had no problems with the good friars in Minnesota making illegal whiskey during prohibition because they were not breaking God’s law but only man’s law.  I claim to be no saint nor even a Christian.  However, I do believe that some laws whether backed by the Supreme Court or backed by an Executive who can make no claim on morality or virtue are evil and deserve to be broken or ignored.  One caveat is that you must be willing to suffer the consequences of breaking such laws.  No one may be on your side.  It might be years or decades before attitudes change, and people realize how heinous some laws are.

Conclusions:

  • Only fools and cowards obey laws that are evil.
  • We have a right to dispute laws that are inhumane or that violate long-held principles of morality and ethics.
  • We may be punished for breaking a law but we all must be willing to take risks if we want to build a better world.
  • Don’t break the law simply because it inconveniences you. Only break laws that are not in the common good or that make other people suffer without good cause.
  • Some things are evil no matter what the law says.

If you would like to pursue this issue further, here are two excellent articles by Michael Corthell which I will list below with a hyperlink to them.  

The President Who Breaks the Law and the Court That Lets Him”, July 16, 2025

When the Crowd Booed Back: How Authoritarians Crumble When People Stop Obeying –  July 22, 2025

 

12 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Margiran's avatar Margaret
    Jul 20, 2025 @ 16:25:06

    Thank you for this John.
    I agree totally with your first 10 lines as well as your conclusions. There are some laws that don’t make sense, laws which are evil and laws which exist for some but not for all. It’s scary and mind boggling what some people will do in the name of ‘rules and laws’. You will have heard of the Milgram Experiment

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

    Obviously the point of the law is to protect us and to keep us safe – a debate in itself!

    Like

    Reply

    • Dr. John Persico Jr.'s avatar Dr. John Persico Jr.
      Jul 20, 2025 @ 16:31:11

      Thanks Margaret. Funny,, I was just mentioning the Stanley Milgram experiments to a friend. Went to see the Broadway Musical “The Parade” yesterday. Very sad. A good example of when it is wrong not to follow the law. Thanks for your comments.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  2. Ben Berwick's avatar Ben Berwick
    Jul 21, 2025 @ 00:24:11

    The law is an ass, as they say, and any law that endorses discrimination, segregation, oppression or poverty is not worth following.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Mark Edward Jabbour's avatar Mark Edward Jabbour
    Jul 21, 2025 @ 05:55:41

    Hi John, Being a human is not easy. Because everything is couched in context and nuance. Ambiguity. Rules and laws simplify that condition, make life easier. My answer is: Yes, of course. Thanks, thought provoking, as usual.

    Like

    Reply

    • Dr. John Persico Jr.'s avatar Dr. John Persico Jr.
      Jul 21, 2025 @ 07:50:57

      Thanks Mark. Good points about context and nuance. and ambiguity. That is like the military acronym for planning these days VUCA. Volitility, Uncertainty, Chaos and Ambiguity. I think you are right about laws making life simpler at times. Glad you thought it was interesting article.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  4. dazzlinge277b882c6's avatar dazzlinge277b882c6
    Jul 22, 2025 @ 11:28:16

    Hi, John, this email should provide my current e-address. Read the break the law blog, and I agree with your assessment of evil laws. Always the trick is who decides if it is evil.. A conservative Christian might deem certain anti-abortion laws as authorized by God, where I would label them evil to the core. They lead to inevitable suffering and even death, based on no good cause in my opinion, but I think the Christian would argue that these laws are not only good but righteous, a soul must be saved at all costs (which assumes that we have a soul), What is the existence of a soul based on? Reports from beyond the grave? Anyhow, the definition of good is a grey area for sure.

    One of the primary reasons I really do try to follow laws in general is because I believe that the fundamental reason for laws in the first place is for the good of society. There is that word good again. They control our baser instincts such as greed. lust, thirst for power, hate, etc. Laws typically restrict our freedom, which is a price we pay for the benefit that society provides. You use the term common good. So I do try to be aware of the question, does this law further the common good, balanced against the loss of freedom it imposes on me as an individual in this society. Typically that loss of freedom is just an inconvenience, that on reflection I can easily accept. Laws enacted, not for the common good, but for the benefit of say, a political party, are, as you point out, evil.

    Like

    Reply

    • Dr. John Persico Jr.'s avatar Dr. John Persico Jr.
      Jul 22, 2025 @ 16:29:28

      Dennis, you make some good points about “who” decides what is “evil” and what is good. I tried to think about this with a concrete example since your point makes sense and presents us with a mega dilemma. As an example, I selected the issue of abortion which I think you mentioned. Suppose an anti-abortionist decided the law was evil? What would they do? Not have an abortion? Have an abortion? That would not hurt anyone. How many laws that we hypothesize might be like this example. Lets take another. What if someone decides that speed limits are stupid so they decide to break them? Would this be in the public good? Could this benefit anyone except themselves? Both of these conditions I said are wrong. Can you think of any example where breaking a good law would be in the public interest? Of course, I am taking liberties with the idea of good such as EPA laws or murder laws etc. But it seems that common sense might have a role to play here. Although as Deming was fond of saying there is nothing common about Common Sense. My head is starting to hurt and it is all your fault. I am going to make a law against causing headaches in other people. 🙂

      Like

      Reply

      • dazzlinge277b882c6's avatar dazzlinge277b882c6
        Jul 26, 2025 @ 09:12:38

        Thanks for the follow up. The problem with the no headache law is that it would make the Epstein fiasco disappear so Trump’s big headache would disappear, and I don’t want that to happen. 😁

        I can’t think offhand of a good law that, if broken, would benefit the common good. I note that there old laws, still on the books, that are in general no longer considered good. The Trump admin has taken advantage of some of these. So in a society of divergent minds, conservative vs liberal, Christian vs atheist, etc etc, common sense, compromise, and consensus seem the most practical way to define good as long as we the people, and that means all the people, get to participate.

        Like

        Reply

        • Dr. John Persico Jr.'s avatar Dr. John Persico Jr.
          Jul 27, 2025 @ 14:25:27

          Hi Dennis, If only we cold get more people to follow up. I agree with your idea on defining the “Good”. Deming used to say that bottom line an Operational Definition was based on two reasonable people agreeing on a set of measure to be tried. Kind of reminds me of Godel’s Theorem of Incompleteness and Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty.” Bottom line there are no absolutes and everything rests on something that we must simply accept at least if I interpret these ideas correctly.

          Like

          Reply

          • Dr. John Persico Jr.'s avatar Dr. John Persico Jr.
            Jul 27, 2025 @ 14:26:59

            I meant stand up not follow up. I wonder if the average person realizes that by speaking out, marching etc, they are participating in making a Democracy?

            Like

            Reply

          • dazzlinge277b882c6's avatar dazzlinge277b882c6
            Jul 27, 2025 @ 20:22:41

            Agreed. Seems we have to figure out how to wake up the average person to the realization that democracy is worth standing up for. How easy it is to take something like freedom for granted with no awareness that it could disappear.

            Like

            Reply

Leave a comment