The Illustrated Guide to Criminal Law
Chapter 13: I Had No Choice!
Necessity pg 21: Civil Disobedience
For that matter, the Necessity defense doesn’t really justify any crime that’s committed in the cause of civil disobedience.
Breaking one law to protest another is not necessary. You can do lawful things like petition, march, vote, lobby, advertise, etc. to change public policy.
The protesters from the bridge scene earlier, carrying signs “Just Say NO,” “moderate change soon” and “Stop Mayor Smarm.”
And now, finally, we can move on to the juicy defenses of Duress and Self-Defense.
Average Joe talking head.
AVERAGE JOE
It’s about time, too!
Except oh, would you look at that? We’re out of time.
JOE
What? Not again!
We’ll see you next time in Part 14: “Do or Die!”
You can read this entire chapter in its original single-page scroll on the comic’s old Tumblr site here.
What about black people breaking the law during the Jim Crow era (like going into white-only restaurants, or not giving a seat on the bus up to a white man, etc), or, if a law today is passed, a transgendered woman using a female bathroom, and being caught and locked up. Would those be defensible because they were acts of peace? I feel like those laws must be broken to protest them; it’s how media attention and social outrage is garnered. What would be the defense of something like that? And more importantly, would the demonstrator (‘criminal’) go to jail?
It’s a moral, but not legal defense. Further, if they didn’t go to jail for it, then it wouldn’t be as effective a tactic. “I believe this is right so strongly that I will accept the punishment in order to draw attention to the problem” is pretty useless if there’s no punishment!
If you are breaking a law in order to protest it, then you are obviously breaking a law. I’d guess the fact that you’re doing it in protest is purely a moral angle rather than a legal one.