REBELLION VS. CONFORMITY
If one believed only in laws or rules that applied to evil, selfish, violent and mala in se crimes and followed only the laws that were for the protection of others, he would still be a criminal. Because he did not conform to some laws that were unjust, even if he hadn't ever hurt a soul, he might be called a non-conformist at best, as well as a criminal. If one believed that some of the laws were unjust but mostly that the system itself acted unjustly and unfairly, he'd be considered a rebel. Had he accused the whole system of downright cruel and unusual and unfair treatment of minorities and of the indigent and could prove and convince the public of such, he'd most likely be institutionalized. But should he not let the system suppress him, he'd be declared dangerously deviant and probably criminally insane and then he'd be lobotomized or killed.
Even though the "dangerously deviant, criminally insane rebel" would be trying to fight for the good of a great many, the authorities would take it as a personal threat, because after all, should the public be convinced of a cruel and unjust system, they would then have the power to change that and Mr. Big Shot would be fired.
"To improve upon something is to rebel against it. To perfect and to better existing things is the only way to go forward." A young philosopher.
And it may be that I have a chance to find out, but that is the future
.something cons teach themselves not to think about" Red, Shawshank prison on hope.
Red, Andy DeFrense's close friend at Shawshank, at first looked forward to his parole hearings. Hoping the highest hope to fool those "damn parole board bastards" (a tone similar to that reflecting the opinion of all inmates) or maybe convince them that for one reason or another he deserved to go free. But it was only after multiple times getting his hopes up, getting fixed up and acting timid, soft and harmless as a sheep and kind as a saint, he gave...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document