Ethics

The act of refusal to abide by certain commands, laws and demands of the government is referred to as civil disobedience. It is also regarded as a form of non-violence resistance. A law is a practice or custom that binds the society together.  This law can be unjust if it is unfair or characterized by injustice. There are instances whereby reinforcement of just laws is unjust. As a result people have devised different methods to address unjust laws in society. To a greater extend a nonviolent means used to bring about change in society has been effective. Similarly, the same means has helped educate the public enabling them understand the necessity for a particular change. It is however debatable whether or not one is justified to use unjust means to correct an unjust law.

Legal Liability of Civil Disobedience
One should be prepared to face the law once he or she commits an offence. Nonviolent protestors are well aware of this fact and are duly prepared for the legal consequences of their actions. This is an attempt for disobedients to assert not only their dissimilarity with ordinary offenders but fidelity to the rule of law. The punishment for civil disobedience can be equal to, more or less severe than that awarded to ordinary offenders. In some instances standard punishments can do little to deter disobedients with strong moral convictions.  In such cases greater punishment is prescribed. On the other hand considering disobedients are far from hardened criminals a less severe punishment is imposed. This approach is recommended by deterrence systems of punishment.

Civil disobedients are punished by communicative and monistic desert systems only if they deserve punishment. Since the commitments and convictions of the disobedients prevent one from adhering to some norms mercy is showed towards the individuals by the law. In this way the law responds in a less severe manner. However, it has been a concern whether or not censure should be used against disobedients. To some extend offenders deserve punishment similar to ordinary offenders. This is because the law should not seem to discriminate on any offender. Similarly, failure to punish such an offence will result into a spiral thus other illegal acts may as well go unpunished. It is for this reason that all violations receive the same treatment whether or not they are justified.

The question of magnitude arises. It is indeed hard to come up with an appropriate punishment for the civil disobedience. Assumptions have been made that in preference of their moral judgment, disobedients consider themselves above the law. Their punishment should therefore be more severe. The publicity accorded to civil disobedients in most instances is too much thus the authorities are pressured to deal with the disobedients in a harsher manner.

On the contrary some people feel the protests of civil disobedients serve society interests. There are concerns that the law should deal with them in a more lenient manner compared to ordinary offenders. However, legal justifications are sometimes opposed to moral justifications. The disobedients are therefore aware and willing to face the legal ramifications for whatever action they take.

Conclusion
Civil disobedients grave to engage the government in a moral dialogue. There success depends on a number of factors including perseverance, public sympathy and the government in place. Some critics have argued that civil disobedience is an extreme, overanalyzed and outdated manner of engagement. Nevertheless in our contemporary society civil disobedience persists to address special interests and broader issues such as foreign policy, environment animal rights and so on. Deficits in democracies such as governments detachment from the people, unavailable mechanisms to contribute to decision-making encourage dissenters. These dissenters stand to defend democratic ideals.