View Full Version : Crime: causation vs justification
The speeding thread has got me thinking (thanks JB... ;) ) about crime and stuff in general.
What I'm going to do is post two illegal scenarios below and I would be interested to see which one you all think is justified and the other unjustified, if either of them are un/justified...
1) A young man grows up on a poor council estate. The local authority is poorly managed and funds for socio-economic and socio-environmental improvement are virtually nil. His education is virtually non-existant, thanks to a combination of teacher shortages and falling in with the "wrong" crowd and playing truant.
He has no qualifications, no motivation and no verifiable abilites. He is on the dole and receives a cheque every week from the government to fund his living. He seeks jobs, but not vigorously. He isn't currently looking for re-education.
One day, when he is walking past a bakers shop, he decides that he is hungry and wants to buy some bread. On checking his wallet, he finds that it is empty. He steals the bread from the shop, and is not caught.
2) A man of thirty five has 15 years of glittering career behind him. He left school with good grades, went to university, came out with an upper 2nd and landed a good job with a local firm. At 26 he married, and at 30 his wife fell pregnant with their first baby.
When he was 34, the recession hit, and his firm lost substantial amounts of money. Already a partner, the man decides that the last option to secure the company's future is to remortgage his house and plow the money into it to combat the losses caused by the massive market downturn (ie not from internal mismanagement). This stabilises the company for a few months, but the market continues to slide and his home is repossessed.
With no living relatives, the man is forced to fall back on what little money he has left. Living with wife and small child in a damp bedsit, money is tight.
One day, when he is walking past a bakers shop, his daughter decides that she is hungry and some bread. On checking his wallet, he finds that it is empty. He steals the bread from the shop, and is not caught.
****
IMHO a crime is what you personally consider immoral... if you are brought up to believe that stealing from a shop is wrong, you won't do it, if you believe that you have as much right to that bread as the shopkeeper, and he should be more careful where he leaves it, then as far as you are concerned it is not a crime.
Yes, people will commit crimes thay know are wrong, mostly based on a brief risk/benefit analysis... But only people who can afford to get caught, and have nothing to lose by it. (not counting the mentally ill)
For example, If the governement accuse me of speeding, and I do not consider that to be a crime, and I lie to the CPS to get off (the fine and ban - this is the benefit to me), is that a crime? In my eyes I am justified (the second of your examples - justification)
If, however, I walked up to an old lady, and lied to her so she could let me into her house and steal her pension (the benefit), I would consider that a crime, as I could not justify that, however low I sank... But in effect, and in terms of value, this is a lesser crime in the eyes of the law than the first....
Further to that,
I would consider both of your examples unjustified, as I would not steal from another person on principal - but to break the law in my own defence if I feel I have not comitted a crime would, I believe, be justified. Strange, eh!
Originally posted by JackaL
Further to that,
I would consider both of your examples unjustified, as I would not steal from another person on principal - but to break the law in my own defence if I feel I have not comitted a crime would, I believe, be justified. Strange, eh!
What if the businessman doesn't feel that he has committed a crime on justification principles?
Originally posted by Starionman
interesting...
I fit the perfect criminal profile.... I have a stong set of personal beliefs from which I will not stray, and which do not quite align themselves with the governments laws. I am intelligent. I do not take undue risks. Yet, I will not steal or vandalise, but would happily kill someone who threatened to injure any of my family or friends, as I am immensely loyal, and would consider a 30 year jail sentence justified in my personal beliefs to save the life of a loved one...
Psychologists would love me, I am a walking contradiction!
Originally posted by Starionman
What if the businessman doesn't feel that he has committed a crime on justification principles?
Then he hasn't commited a crime in his eyes, just as I wouldn't in my first example.
We all have different 'levels' at which something becomes wrong in our eyes and breaks our own personal code... this level will vary from person to person.
Originally posted by JackaL
I fit the perfect criminal profile.... I have a stong set of personal beliefs from which I will not stray, and which do not quite align themselves with the governments laws. I am intelligent. I do not take undue risks. Yet, I will not steal or vandalise, but would happily kill someone who threatened to injure any of my family or friends, as I am immensely loyal, and would consider a 30 year jail sentence justified in my personal beliefs to save the life of a loved one...
Psychologists would love me, I am a walking contradiction!
But are you?
To use your point above, ie murder essentially. There are factors that would cause you to kill someone but these factors are entirely different from the justification factors that would aloow youto kill someone while not committing and offence.
...
Originally posted by JackaL
Then he hasn't commited a crime in his eyes, just as I wouldn't in my first example.
Fair enough.
perhaps I phrased my original question wrongly - I'm talking about your perception of these two acts, not your participation in them... if that makes sense...
Originally posted by Starionman
Fair enough.
perhaps I phrased my original question wrongly - I'm talking about your perception of these two acts, not your participation in them... if that makes sense...
Ahh... in my perception it would be a crime, as it would be stealing directly from another person... Some people, however, are of the opinion that if you were careless enough to not watch them then they are entitled to steal it. It has a lot to do with upbringing as a child IMHO.
hmm interesting...
anyone else? or are you all too scared of a flaming war breaking out...
;) ;) ;)
Originally posted by Starionman
But are you?
To use your point above, ie murder essentially. There are factors that would cause you to kill someone but these factors are entirely different from the justification factors that would aloow youto kill someone while not committing and offence.
...
Maybe I'm not then, but my belief as to what justifies a crime and what does not is very specific... stealing a loaf of bread would be wrong, but what would be technically murder in self defence would not...
Originally posted by JackaL
Ahh... in my perception it would be a crime, as it would be stealing directly from another person... Some people, however, are of the opinion that if you were careless enough to not watch them then they are entitled to steal it. It has a lot to do with upbringing as a child IMHO.
so is a criome a crime regardless of mitigating factors?
Originally posted by Starionman
so is a criome a crime regardless of mitigating factors?
Not in my eyes... I consider that farmer who shot that 16 year old burglar to be completely innocent, regardless of whether he intended to kill the kid.
The law would argue otherwise!
So, tell us what you think...
that was a crime, as there was no justification for that force.
The causational factor was teh break-in, the justification factor of imminent death or personal injury wasn't there.
Had he killed the person in a hand to hand battle, then this would have had a greater degree of justification imho.
Nathan_200sx
17-07-2003, 16:56
Originally posted by Starionman
so is a criome a crime regardless of mitigating factors?
Yes it is but it's the mitigating factors that change how we percive it's severity. I.E if I new the stories behind both parties lives and saw them steel the bread I would look the other way. if however I saw some flash kid run in nick the bread and then throw it at a mate for a laugh I'd coller him.
Am I right in thinking that in my original examples then, both of them are unjustifiable crimes?
Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
Yes it is but it's the mitigating factors that change how we percive it's severity. I.E if I new the stories behind both parties lives and saw them steel the bread I would look the other way. if however I saw some flash kid run in nick the bread and then throw it at a mate for a laugh I'd coller him.
Is one of the people in my examples more guilty than the other?
Originally posted by Starionman
Am I right in thinking that in my original examples then, both of them are unjustifiable crimes?
In my opinion, yes. Undeniably. If you cannot afford bread, you could beg or borrow before you had to resort to stealing. Besides, there are plenty of wild plants that are edible, and you could easily catch a couple of ducks from the local pond to eat :yummy:
Originally posted by Starionman
Is one of the people in my examples more guilty than the other?
One has more justification than the other, but they are both still below my level of justification.
marty_t3
17-07-2003, 17:18
I'd consider both as equally unjustified crimes.
They both had reasons for thier actions but for all they know the shop owner was as hard up as they were. Being skint is no excuse to steal from someone else. Whether you look at it on moral grounds or on legal grounds..... they are still in the wrong.
piehound
17-07-2003, 17:34
Both the same both commited the same crime
no education blah blah blah well every kid knows the diffrence between right and wrong so i guess the pair of em should know better
but depending on there level of hunger the guy who just had nothing and couldnt afford it may have done it as a crime of passion ie the sod was starving
the other could have just left his watch or summet till he got back with the cash
but at the end of the day it wass theft and therefore wrong for what ever reason, as for what the court would hand over thats easy
the waster would get told to behave
the other would get slaughterd as he could afford it
wrong but true!
pieman
Originally posted by marty_t3
I'd consider both as equally unjustified crimes.
They both had reasons for thier actions but for all they know the shop owner was as hard up as they were. Being skint is no excuse to steal from someone else. Whether you look at it on moral grounds or on legal grounds..... they are still in the wrong.
Totally agree with that comment.
NB. I would like to apologise for expressing an opinion which may be different to others on the board.
What about the fact that man 1 is not persuing re-education, even tho this is an option open to him?
piehound
18-07-2003, 00:01
What about the fact that man 1 is not persuing re-education, even tho this is an option open to him?
well maybe he dosent want to or has leaning probs
im as clever as a box of clever things but i do have trouble with reading and writing but i do what i do well , it just takes me ages to type or write anything but i know right from wrong
maybe hes dixselec too""""""""""""
Originally posted by pieman
well maybe he dosent want to or has leaning probs
im as clever as a box of clever things but i do have trouble with reading and writing but i do what i do well , it just takes me ages to type or write anything but i know right from wrong
maybe hes dixselec too""""""""""""
my argument is that he COULD pursue this. The fact that he doesn't means that he is choosing not to better himself, to pull himself out of the situation.
THe other guy meanwhile has had a whole lot of work blown away by factors out of his control.
That is the difference in my argument...
So, if you are trying to better yourself and having a hard time the law doesnt apply to you?
I feel a crime is a crime. I have committed crimes before and if I had been caught I would have plead guilty.
In example 1 hopefully the courts would have hammered this guy because he is lazy and doesnt want to work for his living.
Example 2, hopefully the court would have been lenient becauuse this guy is in a rough spot in life through no fault of his own.
Originally posted by deej-79
So, if you are trying to better yourself and having a hard time the law doesnt apply to you?
.
it isn't a question of application.
it is a question of causation and justification imho
piehound
18-07-2003, 00:48
last word from me
the pair of them are guilty of a crime in the eyes of "law"
but in the eyes of the public its a personel opinion
ie: burglar breaks in to your house , do you give the tw@t a good hiding or do you do phone plod and say "oh dear i found a theif can you help"
please can you get here in the next 2 days as hes hungry, and i wont kill the c@nt honest officer bacon.
bolloxs you will slaughter the tw@t and suffer later and you know its illegal in the eyes of the law but public opinion will back you 95%
I would say a crime is a crime, ultimatley it degrades us all. The motivation behind each incidence is different but in each the induvidual would know that it is socially unacceptable, whatever their perception of ownership of the item in question. Being a victim of circumstance does not justify the action either, many people go through bad times, yet anarchy doesn't run rife. I think Nathan summed it up well, the humane thing to do would be to turn a blind eye (certainly in the second case), but then again where do you draw the line?
gaz.thomas
18-07-2003, 10:50
The same crime has been committed in both cases. Being hungry is no more a justification for stealing bread that wanting a better car is for stealing a skyline. Causation doesn't really play a part either - certain circumstances are invariably out of our control. Mitigation is the only real issue here and I think that is what is being discussed.
Both parties have broken the law and it's down the our judicial system to decide on the punishment. You may feel more lenient toward the failed businessman, or toward the underpriviledged guy and you would sentence accordingly. Personally I say let them eat cake :D
Gaz
-x-
Originally posted by gaz.thomas
Personally I say let them eat cake :D
Gaz
-x-
Or bread, more to the point...
gaz.thomas
18-07-2003, 14:55
Ermmm... Ok ponyman :D
Gaz
-x-
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.