NCJ Number
121693
Date Published
1989
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This analysis of whether or not the government should prosecute people who disobey the draft laws out of conscience concludes that it may be more appropriate to change the laws or adjust the sentencing procedures than simply to prosecute.
Abstract
Many practical reasons exist for enforcing draft laws, but those who disagree with the view that civil disobedience should automatically be prosecuted and punished raise several moral arguments. For example, society clearly cannot tolerate all disobedience, but no evidence exists that society will collapse if it tolerates some disobedience. In addition, prosecutors in the United States have discretion regarding whether to enforce criminal laws in particular cases. Those who disobey the draft laws out of conscience act out of better motives than those who commit crimes out of greed or a desire to subvert government. In addition, society suffers a loss if it punishes a group that includes some of its most loyal and law-respecting citizens. Moreover, the validity or invalidity of the draft law is unclear, so it is difficult to argue that citizens who follow their own judgment are behaving unfairly. Thus, the popular view that the law is the law and must always be enforced fails to distinguish between the common criminal and the people who act on their own judgments of a doubtful law. Note.