Therefore, Martin Luther King finds reason to break laws as long as he believes the laws are unjust according to what his conscience tells him. As such, he was willing to break laws as long as he felt that the laws were unjust to his morality and ethical standing, and by breaking such laws, he felt that that was the highest level of respect for the law altogether (Redner 2001, 191). Therefore, as much as Martin Luther King was expected to respect the laws of the land, he also found it his moral duty to seek justice by breaking any unjust law, thereby finding a reason to be willing to break the law.
Martin Luther King’s arguments for being willing to break the law calls for the willing individual to be ready to willingly take up the corresponding penalty and carry it to its maturity. This means that breaking a law does not just end there, but incorporates the ability to be able to be responsible for your actions to the level of going through the penal system should the need arise (Shah 2007, p. 21). Consequently, this highlights the full depth of what willingness to break the law entails.
J.A. Boss speculated that no one could rightfully accuse David Duke of being insincere since there were technically no laws that could be used in support of such an accusation. This was during a time when discriminatory laws were the order of the day and most instances of injustice, particularly racial, went unchecked. In such a scenario, it was increasingly difficult to counter such instances, as it would basically necessitate the changing of the constitution and a variety of laws to support a counter accusation. In addition, it would require drumming up the support of a significant number of individuals, and this was just not an easy feat to pull through. Considering the technicalities of such an approach, it is easy to see the difficulties involved, hence showing