Law breaking justifiable

This essay will talk about the question above and weather or not there are some law breaking cases in law that are justifiable. Firstly I am going to talk about a woman named Rosa Parks. On the 1st of December 1955, Mrs. Rosa Parks, an African-American seamstress, was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama for not standing and letting a white bus rider take her seat. It was an "established rule" in the American south (at that time) that African-American riders had to sit at the back of the bus.

African-American riders were also expected to surrender their seat to a white bus rider if it was needed. When asked to move to let a white bus rider be seated Mrs. Parks refused. She did not argue and she did not move. The police were called and Mrs. Parks was arrested. 1 Although this law seems very unfair and unreasonable, it was still the law in Alabama at this time so some people would argue that because Rosa Parks fully understood the law there should have been no excuse for her to break it.

On the other hand to me this law was seen as a way of discriminating against black people, but as the race relations act did not arise until 1976 the black people either had to fight it or put up with it. I therefore feel that Rosa Park's act of law breaking was justifiable as reading the events that occurred afterwards shows that Rosa's act of law breaking started a whole new law in Alabama for black people. The result of Rosa's law breaking led to the Montgomery bus boycott.

This was when all the black people of Alabama decided to not use any public transport and to depend on the black people of Alabama who drive taxis or have cars to pick up people on the side of the roads to help get people to work. The boycott lasted 381 days and had to be stopped by the United States Supreme Court. The laws for Alabama concerning black and white people were changed for good. So was Rosa Park's act of law breaking justifiable? The next case this essay will focus on is the case of Eric Rudolph.

Eric Rudolph, 36, is charged with the 1998 bombing of a Birmingham abortion clinic that killed an off-duty police officer and critically injured a nurse. 2 The legal definition of abortion 'The intentional destruction of the foetus in the womb, or any untimely delivery brought about with intent to cause the death of the foetus'3 The words intentional and destruction are words that describes things that have been done purposely, so what is the difference of 'intentionally' killing a person on the street to 'intentionally' killing a baby in the womb. This could be the question asked by Eric Rudolph.

Is this type of crime considered justifiable? It could be said that Eric Rudolph was looking out for the future lives of these innocent children who were going to be murdered in the hands of these doctors. Then comes the confusion between in cases of babies being born premature, Doctors do there best to safe the life of the child, whereas in the abortion clinic, the doctors are only thinking of the needs of one of there patients. How can one crime be seen as justifiable when the person carrying out a crime has used the method of taking a life to try and save a life into consideration.

Early history of abortion laws In Anglo-Saxon times both the ecclesiastical and the secular laws dealt with abortion, the former being concerned with the spiritual sanctions and the latter with compensation. The Leges Henrici was a compilation of Anglo-Saxon laws attributed to the time of Henry I, which decreed:4 'women who have illicit intercourse and destroy their unborn children and those who help then expel the foetus from the womb, are expelled from the church for their lives by an old ruling, but not it is more leniently laid down that they should do penance for ten years.

If a women deliberately got rid of her foetus within forty days, she must do penance for four years, if it was done after it was alive, because it amounts to homicide, she must do penance for seven years'5 The above is a very religious law that only summons women to prayer for killing their unborn. One argument for Eric Rudolph's defence is why his case can not be considered as justifiable as he is trying to stop the murder of unborn children.

What needs to be asked is would he be tried for the same crime if he tried to stop a mother from trying to kill her 4-year old child and resulted in the mothers death? He would be tried for manslaughter, but is the outcome not the same only different circumstances to start with? The only conclusion I can come to on this case is that it is both justifiable and non justifiable. One person cannot take a person's life in order to try and safe another. On the other hand a doctor cannot take a life in order to satisfy the mother's needs and wants.

This next case is one that is very hard for me to decide weather or not that what this woman did is justifiable as the abuse she suffered was also suffered by her husband at the hands of her. Janice Subin was charged with murder for the stabbing death of her husband Chester Subin in the early morning hours of February 13, 1995. She was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment in the Idaho State Penitentiary. She has appealed her judgment for conviction and it is now before the Idaho Supreme Court. 

According to testimony at the original trial, the Subin marriage near its end was "an unhappy one, filled with a mixture of alcohol abuse, moments of kindness towards one another, and moments of violence. "7 From the above I can get an understanding that both Mr and Mrs Subin suffered some kind of abuse in this relationship and that although murder in a lot of cases is never justifiable but in this case and from reading the events that happened before the murder I feel that in a way this case can be seen as justifiable as domestic violence is an issue that can tear a women or man apart emotionally, mentally and physically.

Early in the evening of February 12, Chester and Janice attended a gun club party in the city of [Boise] where they both consumed a large amount of alcohol. On the return trip to the farm, an argument developed between Janice and Chester which continued after their arrival home just after midnight. Once inside, the arguing did not stop; Chester was shouting, and Janice was crying. "At one point in the fighting, Janice tried to telephone the deputy sheriff of [the local] County, but Chester prevented her from using the telephone by shoving her away and pushing her down.

At another point, the argument moved outside the house, and Chester once again was pushing Janice to the ground. "Each time Janice attempted to get up, Chester would push her to the ground again. A short time later, Janice and Chester re-entered their home and went to bed. When Chester fell asleep, Janice got out of bed, went to the kitchen, and got a butcher knife. She then went back into the bedroom and stabbed Chester.