Rule of Law versus Adherence to Collective Norms
Rule of Law versus Adherence to Collective Norms
Sicurella v. United States (1955)
Embedded Files
BLOCK 1 Danica, Draven, Alexis
Define the following terms and relate to the case study.
a. rule of law:
A set of laws that people in a society must obey
The rule of law was expressed by the local board and Department of Justice.
b. adherence to collective norms:
Faithful observance of the norms or standards imposed on members of a group as a condition of membership in the group. These norms can relate to conduct, values, or appearance.
Anothy Sicurella adhered to the collective norms of Jehovah Witnesses and was a conscientious objector to war.
c. reasonable accommodation:
Reasonable accommodation is a means used to put an end to any situation of discrimination based on disability, religion, age or any other ground prohibited by the Charter.
The Supreme Court granted Sicurella a reasonable accommodation.
Summary of Issue/case study: A Jehovah witness named Anthony Sicurella was being drafted for war but was making an appeal that he was a conscientious objector. However he was denied on the basis that he will fight for his religion but not for the country. The local board was the first to deny him, so he took it to the Department of Justice. But due to his conviction of fighting for his religion and not the country, he was again denied and the Appeal Board stated “he has, however, failed to establish that he is opposed to war in any form.” It was then taken to the Supreme Court and they overturned the conviction of Sicurella and found him to be legitimate exempt from military induction. Justice Tom C. Clark argued that the Congress thought of “real shooting wars” when they adopted the law on conscientious objection. They failed to consider his appeal in regards to spiritual battles. In Justice Clark’s opinion, Sicurella’s statements to the draft board had “neither the bark nor bite of war as we know it today”, which made it difficult for the Supreme Court to believe that the Congress had spiritual battles in mind when denying Sicurella’s conscientious objection under the law of participating in war in any form.
Group's Opinion on Issue/case study:
We all agree with the Supreme Court.
Did your group reach a consensus? Why or why not?
BLOCK 1: Abby and Fatima
Define the following terms and relate to the case study.
a. rule of law: A set of laws that people in a society must obey.
Sicurella directly objected to the laws on conscription and stood up for his beliefs which exempted him from any warfare of the state. The state tried hard to enforce the laws on Sicurella but ultimately, could not due to Siurella being a Jehovah's Witness.
b. adherence to collective norms: Groups usually impose norms, or standards, on their members as a condition of membership in the group. These norms can relate conduct, values, or appearance.
Sicurella lived in adherance to his collective norms by making a stand for his religion and going to court for what he believed. This case study is an example for when collective norms can overule.
c. reasonable accommodation: Reasonable accommodation is a means used to put an end to any situation of discrimination based on disability, religion, age or any other ground prohibited by the Charter.
Sicurella received an accommodation due to his beliefs and his religion. He was exempt from fighting in any war because it was conflicting for him to do so.
Summary of Issue/case study:
Jehovah Witnesses believe that violence is only permitted, fighting in wars is only permitted, when it is for God and not the state. Jehovah witness’s believe in theocratic war.
Sicurella was born into and established in the Jehovah's Witness’ religion. From a young age he practiced and participated in the norms of his religion.
In 1950, Sicurella was conscripted for the Korean War, however, he went to court because his beliefs would not allow him to fight in war. His case was therefore, rejected. He then appealed and was referred to the Department of Justice where the investigation was in favour of Sicurella however, he once again lost his case because he failed to express his opposition to war in any form, his beliefs were the only sincere and valid reason but apparently that was not enough.
The department of justice refused his claim because they didn’t take into account the fighting of spiritual battles and only considered physical warfare as the only valid definition of war.
Later, the supreme court found Sicurella to be legitimately exempt from military service. Tom C. Clark, an attorney general at the time, argued that conscientious objection only included physical fighting and wars, not a spiritual battle. They never considered that people might not want to fight because they were against violence or it objected with their views and personal beliefs.
Nine years later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Burke-Wadson Act which better outlined the conditions where someone could be a conscientious objector to war.
Later, Mohamed Ali, in February of 1966, was contacted by the Selective Service which made him eligible for war. However, Ali refused on the grounds of his religion, Islam. His local draft board rejected his claim and he was investigated by the FBI. They charged him for draft evasion and he was fined $10, 000 and five years in prison. He appealed, and was banned from boxing as his case made it to the supreme court. Ali used Sicurella’s case to win his own and eventually he prevailed and the supreme court struck down his conviction in 1971. Moral and ethical reasoning proved to be a legitimate factor.
Group's Opinion on Issue/case study:
Our group agrees with the outcome of this case study. Regardless of the rule of law, individuals should be able to make known and fight for acknowledgement and value of their collective norms. Although we agree that certain people can be granted exceptions for military service, the Rule of Law must be enforced to prevent individuals from taking advantage of their norms to escape warfare. A proper screening process MUST take place for every individual that wishes to consciously object, to ensure that the reasoning of that individual,is legitimate.
Did your group reach a consensus? Why or why not?
Page updated
Report abuse