Definition of Crime

Posted by  $  DeangalvinFL 2 months, 1 week ago to Philosophy
91 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

So, doesn't crime to be true crime require a malicious intent, as objectively evaluated?
Is breaking a rule a crime or is that rule breaking which is fundamentally different from a crime?
Example, a person going through a red light is a stupid rule breaker. Versus:
A person deliberately slamming their car into you is a criminal BECAUSE they intended to hurt you.

Have we not lowered our civilization/government/society by no longer properly differentiating between these two?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by rainman0720 2 months, 1 week ago
    If malicious intent before committing a crime is the only thing that makes it a crime, then isn't the malicious intent itself the crime?

    Sounds a bit like Orwell's Thought Police.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      Like "hate crimes" and "political crimes". They seek to punish thoughts and not actions, or exonerate rights-violating actions, all obliterating the concept of crime as a violation of rights.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months ago
      I wouldn't say that crime is in the thought.
      The destructive action is the first requirement. Then, the second requirement is the determination of whether the person meant to cause the harm.
      If so, then the action was criminal.
      If not, then it was an accident, miss-understanding, lack of awareness or some other non-criminally motivated action.

      We all have "bad thoughts of destructive actions" but we are not criminals because we refrain ourselves from acting upon those thoughts.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rainman0720 2 months ago
        Assume I run a red light and broadside another vehicle, killing someone. I did not see the red light, so I didn't intentionally break the law by not stopping. Because committing an illegal act was not my intent, what just happened is nothing more than an accident?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months ago
          A lot of ifs there. I will leave judgement of a particular circumstance up to you and other members of a jury.
          The primary point, however, is that a deliberate attempt to cause you harm is quite different from something accidental or non-deliberate.
          Later in life, to assume that both people are equally criminal creates injustice, in my opinion. It just isn't true that both people are the same.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
            Reckless driving endangering others is not just an accident; but is a different crime from deliberately running over someone. A true accident need not be a crime, even though there is still responsibility (normally through insurance). Malicious intent is not the distinguishing factor..
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
        Negligence and reckless behavior are not innocent and do negate a crime. An intentional act is not an accident. Assaulting a girl by dragging her into a bedroom, throwing her on the bed and attempting to remove her clothes is not a "misunderstanding or lack of awareness (and more than reckless behavior).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 2 months, 1 week ago
    The state defines criminal intent as any violation of its decrees (which are always intended to enslave and control) while a criminal intent is the desire to create harm to another individual. Running red lights can be careless. I was once targeted and fined for running a stop sign, it was three in the morning, there was no traffic in the quiet neighborhood, I slowed almost to a stop, there was no intent to be careless or create harm but it cost me $180 anyway. Some rules are designed to keep us safe as in all driving with the same intentions. Others are just to create income for the state, i.e. the right of the state to take your money for any intent, to indebt your property and demand payment or the right to take your property if you fail are examples of enslavement.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 2 months, 1 week ago
      The time has come to distinguish between permission and right. Laws give the government permission to take some act. For a right, there is no need to get permission. One does not enter another's property without permission so it is not a right to do so. For a right, everyone gets out of the way and cannot stop you but may think that they can and will try to pass a law to force your action.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months ago
      "The state defines". I think your comments about an intention by the state to enslave and control is parallel to what I was trying to get at.

      There is a difference between actual malicious, aka criminal, actions and what the state declares to be illegal. Many laws are vague or just plain unjust in and of themselves. Breaking such laws does not make you a "true criminal", in my opinion. Furthermore, to your point, many people who technically break a law are in fact the good people.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 1 week ago
    There are many crimes commited by “good intentioned” people that pave lots of roads to hell for the “greater good.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jimjamesjames 2 months, 1 week ago
      “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm; but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” T.S. ELLIOT
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
    "doesn't crime to be true crime require a malicious intent?"

    No. The intent itself (whether carelessness, lack thereof (ignorance), maliciousness, spite, envy, etc.) is an attending emotion to the crime. Reality doesn't really care why you did something - it only care that something happened. The laws of natural response don't care how you chopped the tree down, they still mandate the tree falls.

    Can there be invented laws of man which attempt to unreasonably burden us? Assuredly. As long as there are men with a penchant for power and who attempt to coerce others to their own ends, there will be ridiculous and stupid laws. In fact, there are whole books of ridiculous laws. I have one and I alternate between laughing at the ridiculousness and shaking my head at the blatant vindictiveness.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
      Intent is not an emotion. Neither malicious intent nor an accompanying emotion are relevant to whether a crime was committed.

      Reality doesn't "care" about anything, not just "why". The term does not apply at all.

      His (incorrect) thesis is about legitimate laws, not "invented laws attempting unreasonable burden".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 months, 1 week ago
    Carelessness or neglect without regard to the danger to others is a criminal act, as defined in U.S. law. A person who runs a red light when they know such an act is illegal, and hits someone is definitely guilty of a crime, whether they intended to hit the other person or not.

    When Hillary Clinton acted with extreme disregard to her duty to protect classified information, she was guilty of a crime, whether or not she intended for that information to get into the hands of enemies. She signed acknowledgement of her duty to protect classified information, whether or not she actually took the time to read what she signed.

    Society accounts for stupidity versus malicious intent by the gradation of punishment. The driver who runs a red light without hitting anyone gets a ticket and a fine. The driver who runs the red light and hits someone is punished by the severity of the damage created by his carelessness, up to the charge of reckless homicide. We do make distinctions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 1 week ago
      By the way, there is a sort of obligation to read a contract before one signs it. Though it appears that some people will sign just anything anybody sticks under their noses, provided it is convenient. But if you do that, you might as well be illiterate and sign your name with an X. But reading contracts is very hard sometimes; it irritates me to have to read those Terms of Services on Internet sites; I get aggravated at the idea of wasting time on something longer than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
    I remember learning about this at some point. Thins like not obeying a traffic light do not require criminal intent. As you say, trying to hurt someone on purpose does require criminal intent, but then every crime the person commits involved with that is covered by the criminal intent. Prosecutors don't have to establish intent for each law violation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      A crime is a violation of someone's rights whether or not by malicious motive.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
        Many people have your point of view.
        I respectfully disagree.
        If there is no malicious intent, then there is no crime.
        There are accidents, misunderstandings, etc which government force can and should be used to rectify or discontinue such actions. They would only become criminal, in my view, if the person involved continued to do the actions after being fully informed that their actions were harmful.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 1 week ago
          In other words, if I aliviate you of your possessions because, in my sincere belief, they are rotting your soul, you would not consider it a crime?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months ago
            I would most certainly consider that a crime.
            If a jurist, a hopefully objective peer, were to hear that they would think you are nuts.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 2 months ago
              But you said that if there is no criminal intent, then there is no crime. The scenario that I proposed has no maliscious intent; on the contrary, it is for your own good, or at least for the good of the society.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 months ago
                A self proclaimed good intention would need to be judged by an independent jury/judge.
                I doubt very many people would buy in to such nonsense as you propose. I think most juries would say, "Guilty!" with an explanation point.

                Yet, there ARE scenarios that could fit what you are talking about and justify a conclusion of innocence. For example, parents making their children do their homework. :) Short term, I am sure you could get a lot of kids to indicate they are being harmed, yet in the long term they do like it.
                Or spouses or other genuinely concerned people dealing with those who have self destructive addictions. These are messy issues. A clear cut answer is not always obvious. A presumption of innocence is wise, in my opinion.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by strugatsky 2 months ago
                  One example of “such nonsense” was forced “re-education” in communist countries, forced “re-distribution”, and even elimination of undesirable classes for the benefit of the society.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          If you murder someone without malicious intent, such as doing it for the victim's own good with alleged "good intentions" of believing you are sending him to heaven, it is still a crime. Guilt or innocence in committing the act is not based on assessment of motive.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 months ago
          If, as a result of your carelessness, with no malice, a person dies, are you saying there should be no criminal charge? Even manslaughter carries a criminal charge.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months ago
            Yes.
            There are degrees of carelessness, but under normal circumstances, if there is an accident, then the person should not be found guilty of a crime.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 2 months ago
              Criminal culpability means there was no direct intent of malice, yet the person should have known that harm will or may result. It is criminal, as the name suggests, and prosecuted as a crime.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 months ago
                Ok, but if someone were of this type of legal culpability you would probably still feel comfortable inviting them over for dinner.
                Yet, if someone were of the criminal type that acted with deliberate intent to harm, you probably wouldn't want to invite them over for dinner. Nor take care of your kids, etc. They belong in prison.

                It is my primary point that not differentiating between these two, leads to compounded injustice by labeling all as CRIMINAL when only some deserve that label.
                Rulebreaker, fool, non omniscient human can serve as a more appropriate label for the non-malicious people.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by strugatsky 2 months ago
                  Inviting to diner is a completely different subject. The legal system is very deliberately disassociated from morality. Otherwise, jury deliberations would last years. The legal code is not unlike a computer code - it is binary. Either Yes or No. Let's limit our discussion to your original comment, which only dealt with the legal aspect.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      Yes, but isn't that a problem?
      If there is no difference between a malicious act and a foolish act, then what kind of society do we have?
      Where I am going with this is, if Kavanaugh, or any young boy, tries to kiss a girl and then she freaks out, is that a crime?
      If a person has good intentions, or at least not malicious ones, should we be condemning someone for the results?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
        A drunk at a party pulling a girl into a bedroom, groping her, trying to take her clothes off, and gagging her to stop her from calling for help is the crime of assault regardless of malicious motive; it is not "good intentions" or "tries to kiss a girl and then she freaks out".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 2 months, 1 week ago
          Would it still be a crime if what you described above was done with full and willing participation of the girl? What if she had regrets the next day, or 10 years later?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
            The accusation has nothing to do with willing participation by both individuals.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 2 months ago
              I don't understand your comment.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                Assault is not "willing participation". He was referring to the Ford assault accusation, but misrepresented as an innocent "kiss".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by strugatsky 2 months ago
                  Yes, in the case of a “traditional” assault, where the victim rejects or fights the action, I would agree with you. In my comment, I was taking a generic case, where the sex is consensual (so far, sex itself hasn’t been outlawed yet), but the woman “regrets” it later. What category does that fall, for under some laws today, a lawful act can later become unlawful depending on the feelings of a participant at some later time.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  2 months ago
                    "feelings"
                    That gets to the heart of the matter.
                    We seemingly are moving away from an objective based legal system to one of feelings. If a self proclaimed victim "feels" hurt, insulted, harmed, etc, then they are supposed to be believed based on their proclamations. That we should assume innocent motives or just plain innocence is being pushed to the side.

                    I think, at the bottom of this, is a literal legalistic mentality that doesn't want to take into account peoples motives. For example, could it have been an accident? If yes, then benefit of the doubt we should presume innocence. Could it have been a misunderstanding? If yes, then we should presume innocence.

                    Now, it is GUILTY!! if someone "feels" attacked or embarrassed or insulted or harmed, etc. Guilty until proven innocent.

                    Doesn't this lower our society to one where many people, currently white males, need to live in fear of mere accusations? Is this not similar to an age when black people had to fear accusations? Or Jews in old time Germany? Or witches in Spain? And so on. Have we not learned our history lessons?

                    Innocence until proven guilty has inside of it that we should assume that people's intentions are good, or at least not malicious, unless proven otherwise.

                    It should not be a crime to be human and therefore with a limited mind that can not know everything, especially what might offend some other person that is around us.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                      An "accident" versus "malicious intent" is a false alternative. Accidents are not crimes unless caused by negligence.

                      Innocent until proven guilt does not presume any kind of intentions, only innocent before the law, which makes the rest legally irrelevant.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                    She said she was assaulted by being pushed into a bedroom, thrown on the bed, and feared being killed. There wasn't anything consensual about it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by strugatsky 2 months ago
                      Sure, if you assume that she tells the truth. In this case, her story began to disintegrate from day one. There is nothing believable in her story, from discontinuity of events to facts being shown to be false, to body language clearly indicating lying. I am surprised how cheaply and unprofessionally her case was cobbled together. She is risking prison time.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                        This is a thread on the meaning of crime. There is no justification for switching the subject from a description of an assault as an example of a crime to an extraneous different event of something "consensual", which has nothing to do with what I wrote.

                        Ford's accusation of assault came up in this topic because it is what Galvin referred to, behind the fantasy of misrepresenting it as only a "kiss", which he was called out for. He tried to dismiss it as 'good intent' in an invention he has repeated several times as fact, and slipped it in here again as a false premise. His re-write is just as arbitrary as claiming it was "consensual".

                        The description of the assault is an example of a crime. Arbitrarily claiming that it was "consensual" does not change the fact that the description of the assault is an example of a crime.

                        Aside from the discussion of what is a crime, her account of what happened to her did not disintegrate. There is no evidence that Kavanaugh did it, and his character, reputation and calendar are all evidence that he did not, but It is plausible and likely that something like what she described as experiencing did happen to her. Her account of what happened to her personally is far more plausible than assertions by others who know nothing about it and were not there that is was only a "kiss" or "consensual". It has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, but does represent a crime. You do not have to assume she is telling the truth to recognize that.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by strugatsky 2 months ago
                          OK, let’s leave the Kavanaugh/Ford issue aside (I agree with your general characterization). Coming back to earlier comment, if two (or more) people have sex, with no obvious complaints at that moment, can one of them claim assault or rape at a later time (based on regret or re-evaluation)? It is now called “date rape” and can end up with a person in prison. Yet, factually, the only change from yesterday’s enjoyment to today’s rape is the change of one person’s feelings.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                            If something is consensual it cannot retroactively become non-consensual. Either the person in fact consented or did not.

                            'Date rape' usually means on a consensual 'date' but with an assault going beyond that.

                            Any attempt to employ a change in 'feelings' to claim that consent no longer was consent is a misrepresentation of the facts of the event. An attempt to change that and make such a revision 'legal' is complete subjectivism in law and a travesty of justice no matter what realm it appears in.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
          True, if that is what happened.
          But that contradicts what he stated.
          Being objective, one should not assume that one person is telling the truth and one is lying.
          We can't know for sure what happened, we can only try to make sense out of the data presented. Doing so with an objective unemotional review of what has been presented does not lead to: she must be 100% correct.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
            You have repeatedly baselessly asserted in different posts as fact that she was only "klissed" or tried to "kiss a boy", with no evidence and in complete contradiction to what she reported herself. You continue to make the arbitrary assertion expecting it to be taken as the base of discussion. An arbitrary premise is not "objective unemotional review".

            Kavanaugh had nothing to do with it. He said and presented evidence that he was not there at all. He did not contradict her description of what happened to her by whoever did it; he said that he did not. No one said "she must be 100% correct". Going off on a tangent about imagined "good intentions" in what you concoct as an account of what happened is irrelevant.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by brkssb 2 months, 1 week ago
    Courtesy of Robert Heinlein:
    "(1) Every citizen is free to perform any act which does not hamper the equal freedom of another citizen.
    "(2) No law shall forbid the performance of any act, which does not damage the physical or economic welfare of another person.
    "(3) No act shall constitute a violation of a law valid under this provision unless there is such damage or immediate present danger resulting from that act."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
      Taking this seriously is sloppy libertarianism with dangerous implications. "Equal freedom" and "damage physical or economic welfare" are undefined, Normal competition and economic failure routinely "damage welfare". "Such damage" and "present danger" ignores threats and long term fraud.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
    • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
      Recklessness is not necessarily malicious. Evasive, out of focus disregard is not in itself a desire to harm. Malice is not relevant to determining recklessness or negligence.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment deleted.
        • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
          I did not say that "mindlessness is not necessarily anti-life". Evasion is not necessarily deliberate malice towards another person. It is an entirely different statement than the 'quote' you made up. Your dramatic denunciations are misrepresentations lacking objectivity and honesty. This one is no better than your previous false claim that I equivocated between reason and force. Your thinking and writing are worse than sloppy -- whether or not "malicious".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by EgoPriest 2 months ago
            According to my philosophy, evasion is necessarily evil or malicious:

            "Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think -- not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgement -- on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict "It is."

            Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper.

            By refusing to say "It is," you are refusing to say "I am." By suspending your judgement, you are negating your person. When a man declares: "Who am I to know?" -- he is declaring: "Who am I to live?" -Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, pp 140-141.

            [See, I told you you'd find other places to "push back."]
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
              Evasion and malice towards another person are two different concepts. Your dramatic pronouncements do not change that. I did not say that "mindlessness is not necessarily anti-life". You made up the quote. Ayn Rand's philosophy Objectivism begins with small-o objectivity and honesty with one's self. It's not about dramatically brandishing out of context slogans in sweeping pronouncements that make no sense in the context of the discussion. Take off your cape and stop misquoting and misrepresenting other people here (including Ayn Rand).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment deleted.
                • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                  No one said "evasion towards" a person. You left out "malice towards another person".

                  Evasion leading to harm done to someone through negligence or recklessness is not a "cause" of malice. Malice is a conscious intent, not the effect of avoidance. Ignorance may also lead to harm with or without malice, which is not a defense for, e.g., libel.

                  malice:
                  1. a desire to inflict harm or suffering on another.
                  2. harmful intent on the part of a person who commits an unlawful act injurious to another.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -3
                Posted by EgoPriest 2 months ago
                Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It's what she named her integrated system of distinguishing truth from falsehood on the basis of the principles of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics etc. as grasped and integrated by her mind.

                You cannot walk up to a man of principle and say, "whatever I consider 'truth' -- that's "objectiv-ism." It's NOT "truthism." But I do think of it at times as "respectivism" as well, or "existentialism" without mysticism (which was what she, in a rational cultural context would have called it).

                If you have any respect for the truth or reality at all, then you will stop trying to "hijack" a philosophy you have no understanding of as exhibited by your sophistry.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                  I know very well what Objectivism is, including that it does not mean dramatically denouncing, misquoting and smearing people you misrepresent, while wrapping yourself in attempts at Objectivist-sounding rhetoric without regard to the meaning of the subject being discussed. Please read the guidelines for posting on this forum.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • -3
                    Posted by EgoPriest 2 months ago
                    I insist that evasion (as the root of evil) is necessarily malicious (if only against oneself), and that any malicious "intent" necessarily involves evasion (as does any psychologizing one may "recklessly" engage in).

                    You seem to have another view which I think improperly disassociates the two, but may not argue against without being accused of misrepresentation.

                    Evasion is the root of all evil, including malice. All malice is rooted in evasion. If you need more quotations to nail this down for you, I'll be happy to provide them. Goodnight.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                      You appear to have a lot of problems with rationalism and floating abstractions.

                      Your misrepresentations of me and my posts are very explicit, including numerous made-up quotes and reckless, libelous statements about my knowledge and honesty.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by preimert1 2 months, 1 week ago
    A "crime" is an action outside the scope of "jurisdiction". By that I mean its not only the legally recognized "criminal-justice" system.

    For example if a police officer shoots someone and its found to be within departmental policy, it is deemed to be a "good shoot" even though the shootee is just as dead as if the shooter were an armed thug.

    Or how about a religious honor killing or a fatwah decreed by an imam? If it is carried out in an Islamic country under sharia law it may be deemed rightious. The same act committed in the USA is a crime of murder.

    Even further afield, suppose a person is a member of a mafia family. Mafioso has its own rules and codes of conduct under jurisdiction of the capos,
    which can be delt with harshly as enforced by its own people--this even though considered criminal under government jurisdiction. It depends on who's ox is being gored and where, doesn't it?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
      The crime of murder does not include self defense and police protection against the criminal Violation of rights is not a subjective matter relative to "who's ox". There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" of a mafia gang.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by preimert1 2 months ago
        OK. Admittedly the mafia example is a specious argument and I plead guilty to sophism (in the modern sense.) But I couldn't find a suitable synonym, except maybe "purview', so its jurisdiction" in quotes. "Murder" is a legal term (as was pointed out to me during a jury panel voir dire by an attorney.) I asked, "so its an unsanctioned killing then?" "Unsanctioned by whom?" he asked. "by whoever has jurisdiction", I responded. i was immediately dismissed. Are an attorney by the way, ewv?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
          You don't have to be a lawyer to know that both the moral and legal concepts of murder do not include police protection, that territory claimed by a gang is not a "jurisdiction", that the violation of rights is not subjective, and sophism is not rational discussion..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by preimert1 2 months ago
            Ewv, i ment no offense when I asked if you were a lawyer, juat curious as your response sounded "lawer-like." Here is a quote from the Washington Post regarding conviction of a Chicago cop for 2nd degree murder: "Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke has been convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated battery in the killing of Laquan McDonald. On October 20, 2014, Van Dyke shot and murdered teenager McDonald, shooting him 16 times, including a number of times while he lay dying in the street. Van Dyke said that he feared for his life..."

            I wasn't referring to territory claimed by the mafia as their jurisdiction. Organized Crime has their own cods of conduct and means of dealing with those who break them which are at odds with our legal system, but eerily parallel with it at times.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
              It isn't personal. You said a crime depends on whose ox is gored, as if it were subjective. A crime is a violation of rights, not whatever government says it is. Legitimate government, including most of what we have for ordinary criminal law, is not a subjective parallel with the mafia, etc.

              Most governments around the world are criminal themselves and many are not much different than the mafia; they don't define the concept of 'crime' for us as they try to wipe out the concept and replace its meaning with 'lack of subservience to control'. But this thread was intended to be about the meaning of the valid concept of crime, though the thread's thesis about a requirement for malice was false. We can only think rationally with valid concepts, and letting government define our concepts lets it determine how we think or become incapable of thinking.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
    To All. I have edited the original post to include, "as objectively evaluated".
    That should clear up many of the issues that were brought up. Crime, of course, should not be excused because the criminal thinks it is good from their subjective viewpoint.
    Thank you all for your posts.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      Please do not alter posts after they have been responded to. It only confuses and misleads those reading the responses later. In this case the change may cause confusion but makes no substantive difference since legal facts are always supposed to be established "objectively" and the claim that an "intent" has been does not change the fact that a crime is a crime regardless of intent.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 months, 1 week ago
    To certain persons crime is simply what certain elements call "business"
    .When I worked in a drug store on 12th St. in Detroit, street notorious for criminal activity, we were visited by a crime boss named Chinky Ashe.
    He got his name because of his almond shaped eyes. Here is one way he made his living. (This was in the 50s) He'd go to banks and but many rolls of quarters. Then he'd cross the Detroit river into Canada and buy a lot of Canadian quarters worth about 18 cents each. Then he'd mix in the quarters with the Canadian quarters and cash the rolls in. He made about $100.00 a week that way. It was one of his income streams.. I once said to him, "Chinky, with all the work it takes to do all that, you could put the money into a legit enterprise that will take less effort. He looked at me quizzically tinged with disgust and replied, "What? And go straight?"
    So you can see that they didn't consider their activity to be anything but a certain catagory of business.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months ago
      But wouldn't you and independent folks on a jury come to the conclusion that he had criminal intent AND acted on the intent to steal money?
      Wouldn't you objectively find him guilty of a crime?

      Whereas, if someone turned in some Canadian quarters along with some USA quarters with a routine deposit without giving it any thought, wouldn't you find them innocent, if you were on the jury?

      The difference being one person deliberately did it and the other person did not. Agree Mr. Herb7734?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
        Systematic scamming the exchange rate versus ignoring a difference in small amounts from a few coins not worth calculating does not mean that a person who spends a Canadian coin didn't do it deliberately -- he saw he had the coin and deliberately spent it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 1 week ago
    I believe that running a red light is considered to be carelessness, which is volitional. (Though it still can happen by accident). Then, there are some who will try to excuse themselves, when a wrong thing they did was intentional, but the intent was supposedly good; i.e. "I'm sorry I beat you when you hadn't done the thing, but I only wanted to teach you discipline, or I only wanted you to get along with your brother,etc". Always something that they "only wanted", under the principle that "the end justifies the means."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months ago
      There are gradations, of course.
      What I was trying to call out is that there is a fundamental difference between those who deliberately do something harmful and those who do not. We have become so literally legalistic that we seem to no longer be able to see the difference. That creates injustice, in my opinion.

      Kavanaugh may have drank in his senior year in high school after the drinking age was increased, so he is/was a lawbreaker. But to call him a criminal seems to me to be absurd.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
        You didn't say "deliberately do something harmful", you said "malicious intent". Deliberately doing something that is a crime and harmful is a crime regardless of malice.

        The distinguish has nothing to do with seriousness of underage drinking. Different crimes have different degrees of seriousness.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 2 months, 1 week ago
    Crime means now being politically incorrect, not obeying any law regardless if you knew it at the time, intended to break it, or accidentally viiolated it.

    Also, the number of "laws" is so high that I would estimate I break probably at least 10-20 of them each and every day, mostly because I dont know of them, they are victimless and infringe on my freedom for no reason, or they are so stupid that I just cant obey them.

    In vegas we have a law that it is illegal to feed a cat that comes to your door and wants food. It is illegal to post signs without a permit (but of course its ok for politicians to do it and not even take them down after the election). So may laws are on the books here, like the illegality of making cell phone calls in your car even if you pull over and stop. How about the one that says if the keys are in your car somewhere and you had too much to drink and dont want to drive so you take a nap IN the car- you get a DUI.


    My respect for the laws here in this country has deteriorated drastically as time goes on and more and more laws get past.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months ago
      Yes, that is part of what I am observing.
      A great many people are losing respect for the legitimate laws because there are too many absurd ones AND with how they are being enforced and prosecuted.
      The world of Anthem is drawing in, and many people cheer. That is scary.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
        The topic of illegitimate laws is a different subject from the claim that an actual crime requires that there be malicious intent. Of course there is a breakdown in respect for the law when illegitimate laws are imposed, especially when there is generally poor popular understanding of the purpose of laws as the protection of the rights of the individual (and not 'entitlements'). Many people do want laws controlling others. It does not help to claim that violating the rights of the individual require malicious intent to be a crime.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo