A few weeks ago here in NYC a bunch of anti-war grannies staged a peaceful sit-in at the famed Times Square military recruitment center. They were promptly – but gently – arrested on disorderly conduct charges. This stunt was well-publicized beforehand and, IIRC, the protester camp even worked out the arrest details in advance with the NYPD. So, this was a classic textbook case of civil disobedience.
Okay, fast forward to today. The gals go before the judge and plead not guilty. Now, that got me wondering. According to the decades-old civil disobedience script, aren’t you supposed to plead guilty?
Okay, just to clarify, I’m not really looking for advice or opinions here. I’m looking for history. When MLK, or Ghandi – or whoever – “wrote the book” on civil disobedience, did that book say you were supposed to plead guilty or not guilty?
During the anti-war protests of the 1960s, some arrestees would give false names. A mass arrest would have a few Donald Ducks, a few Karl Marxes, and such. The arrest wouldn’t go on your real-name record; however, it made it complicated for your family to post bail. (A bit of trivia: the real Karl Marx named himself after a jailer of that name.)
Most protest arrests in those days were case-dismissed in court.
This is most likely a Great Debate or IMHO type question, but the principle of civil disobedience generally isn’t to tie up the courts or demonstrate disrespect for the law, otherwise the civil disobediant would be nothing more than an outlaw. The disobediant is demonstrating that if the individual has to accept and unjust law, society has to accept an unjust result: the disobedient’s imprisonment. It’s worth noting that King walked into the Birmingham jail.
From King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Henry David Thoraeau, who coined the phrase “civil disobedience” in his book of the same name, had this to say (in a different book):
Buddy of mine frequently “crosses the line” at a military base. I don’t know if its ‘by the book’ or not, but he pleads “No Contest”. As in, yeah, I did it… but no, I don’t feel guilty for having done it.
He says he gets irritated by protesters that use the Not Guilty plea. Afterall, they did do it, they know they did it, and it was the whole point of doing it. If you aren’t committed enough to go to jail, then don’t do the crime.
Well, that’s my take on his position anyway. Not that I want to be putting words in his mouth.
Side note: According to him, if he goes with a group, he says the group will often call ahead to inform the base of their intentions, so that they can staff accordingly.
If the protesters knew that there was a law prohibiting what they were doing, then yes, I would say that they should plead guilty. (Probably even if they didn’t know specifically about the law, but it clearly prohibits exactly what they were doing.)
If they were just trying to raise awareness about something-or-other through the sit-in and don’t believe whatever law they were arrested under really applies in their case, (just invoked in order to get rid of them,) then they should plead not guilty. Not sure if this qualifies as ‘traditional civil disobedience’.
On the other hand, if they arranged the arrest details with the police beforehand and are then arguing that they were wrongly arrested, that seems more than a little two-faced.
The only person I know who has been arrested (well, for protesting, anyway :rolleyes: ) pled guilty. I don’t think he arranged an arrest with the police beforehand, but he claimed they had a permit to protest. However, both sides of the legal dispute agreed that chaining yourself to the door of an abortion clinic was not covered in the permit, so off to jail he went (for a night, anyway).
Most modern protests I’ve seen are far from principled. The goal is to inflict damage and “shake things up,” at any cost. Examples: “Let’s lie across the freeway in order to show people how free trade disproportionately hurts the poor,” or “Vandalize and loot Gap stores, because there is an unjust war in Iraq going on.”