Murder is Illegal and Unlawful, that is why it has not happened in Centuries

Sorry, I am going to explain something to you folks and I hope it gets through to you. Just because something is illegal or unlawful, does not mean it stops. Just because something is illegal or unlawful, does not mean it will stop.

Okay, I roped you into the discussion by using murder as my bait, so I will explain my position. Murder, theft, torture, rape, etc are all CRIMINAL acts that HARM or INFRINGE on another's rights of LIFE, LIBERTY or PROPERTY. There are more first relative crimes. Everyone knows what first relative crimes are. This is my definition so you will not find that anywhere else. A first relative crime is where there is a victim and direct harm occurred. These are the types of crimes that people that commit them, should NEVER see the light of day again. To get a better perspective of what I mean, they are crimes that are personal, they affect the person that is the victim directly. An example of a first relative crime that is not obvious would be a banker that fraudulently steals through fraud a person's home.

Anyway, what I am trying to get at, is that no matter what crime you make illegal or unlawful, crime will still exist. You cannot ever get rid of crime because you make it illegal or unlawful.

Now, let us talk about second relative crime. You still need a victim in second relative crime. This occurs in such circumstances where a person creates the atmosphere where the crime can occur. Let us say that a union in say the city of New York decides not to do what they have been paid to do. This creates a hazardous situation where people are harmed. Or we could use a situation like where a corporation decides to not fix the brake system on a vehicle because it is cheaper to pay the lawsuits instead of fixing the brakes.

Then we have the third relative crimes, which are not really crimes because there is NO VICTIM. These could be described as legislation that creates moral or relativistic hazards like speeding. Who in these circumstances are the victims? Actually no one really, the state has just decided that the relativistic probability that someone could be harmed is a criminal offense itself.

Anyway, just a beginning essay, if you want to wade in on my thesis, give me a go.

Laws are not created to prevent crime. Laws are a means to legally punish the perpetrator of the crime.

Edit: Now, punishments could be seen as deterrents, which are established to both punish the guilty and to dissuade others from committing the same criminal activity. However, punishment as a deterrent does not always work.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Alright, so what you are saying is that the criminal code is really just what? Reactionary?

Law is not just a thesis, it is supposed to be a something like mathematics, absolute.

But there is a problem, courts and judges use circumstances to evaluate their system. As an example, there is a California court that felt because the person was problematic (intellectually unable to know their gender) they are not liable as someone that was not problematic.

To me, laws are like medicine: they only treat the symptoms, not the cause.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


What gives one person the ability to be punished at one component, yet another that does the EXACT same thing will be punished completely different.

This In MY OPINION is wrong.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Alright, so what you are saying is that the criminal code is really just what? Reactionary?

I wouldn't call laws reactionary. They are a means to an end. Without laws, what means do we have to punish the action? Do you hand down the punishment? Do I? Or are you advocating lawlessness and vigilantism?

I'd say in order for crime to be legitimate it must have a victim, the State can not be a legitimate victim in any crime.

If no one is harmed and no property is damaged/stolen, then we can say no crime has occurred.

If all crimes have a specific victim, the need for public courts and public police vaporizes.

Crimes can be dealt with entirely through civil courts by the people themselves on a "loser pays" system, with pro-bono charity taking care of the poor.

Rape, property damage, theft, assault, fraud, and other legitimate crimes are best given justice in terms of making the victim whole once again. Making a victim whole means returning the property taken and compensating the victim for any emotional / physical distress.

That means money and property is forcibly taken from the perpetrator and handed to the victim. - something civil courts are very good at adjudicating.

Further, since all crimes must have a victim, potential victims would be allowed to arm and defend themselves. I strongly suspect that criminals would think twice before deciding to take on armed victims.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Well, this is one of the things that you and I have to evaluate.

Exactly, what is punishment. When does someone that commits a crime, is given reprieve?

I am old school this way also. I hate to admit it, but if you are going to release someone from any jail, they should be given their rights completely back.

That is just me though. There are a few that agree with me. The problem is now, we have a probate and parole system that has like 1 million people working for it. Did you know that? We no longer have prisons, we have have halfway houses spread out throughout the US.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I agree with your assessment. A crime needs a victim. There are many things deemed criminal that, in fact, have no victim. That's the product of a "nanny state" attempting to save us from ourselves. Those type of "crimes" should be decriminalized.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I have to think about my response to you.

You and I are pretty close, but crime and punishment are completely different discussion than our society we have discussed.

I myself think that anyone that is punished for a crime (real crime) should be completely reprieved. BUT, I think that any violent criminal action should be respondant to the the family or relatives of the case.

You rape someone, that in and of itself is a death sentence if the family asks for it. I am a little more about retribution than most Libertarians.

I just picked up my Bible and read a quick verse, set it back down, came in and looked at your post. Couldn't help but notice the coincidence in the two. Here's what I read:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."
--1 TIMOTHY 1:9-11

Peace...

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I for one would like to commend you, OP.

For posting something we already know.

And stating it in such a brilliant way too.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


If I were a judge and you were a rape victim, and I gave you the following options, which would you chose?

1. You can pay to send the rapist to a prison out of your own pocket, pay for his food, pay for his healthcare, and pay for the jail that houses him.

or

2. You can take the all the property the rapist owns and then collect a portion of any pay he earns for the rest of his life.

Which would you chose and which is more just?

Because the first one is what we have right now.


I can think of some more creative ways of protecting victims as well.

-Like allowing the victim to shoot the perpetrator on sight if he ever gets near you.
-Publicly branding the criminal so that he will find it outrageously difficult to do business in the future
-For cases like murder, throwing him out of the country or dumping him in the Canadian outback with no clothing or supplies.
-For cases like murder, allowing the public to shoot him without repercussions.

All of which entail no cost (or very little to the victim) or prisons.

I'm just going to the bottom line here. Will there be a police, a leo or some sort or not? What entity will be doing the enforcing if at all? And on what grounds?

Ya know, I see TV shows like The Running Man or more recently Death Race as being excellent methods of punishment. With proceeds from advertising revenues being returned to the victims.

If you murder someone, then the victims family should get the right to decide what to do with you personally.

Kill you, enslave you, or send you to the Running Man TV show.

Publicly funded prisons just don't seem like a very just method of punishment.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
... However, punishment as a deterrent does not always work.

edit on 18-1-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)

Punishment as a deterrent does not work. Period.

Originally posted by PinkAndBlack

Originally posted by Aggie Man
... However, punishment as a deterrent does not always work.

edit on 18-1-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)

Punishment as a deterrent does not work. Period.

edit on 18-1-2011 by PinkAndBlack because: (no reason given)

That's not true. There are things that I do not partake in, simply because of the consequences of being caught. So, punishment as a deterrent does work....at least for me....and I suspect the same goes for many others as well.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by PinkAndBlack

Originally posted by Aggie Man
... However, punishment as a deterrent does not always work.

edit on 18-1-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)

Punishment as a deterrent does not work. Period.

edit on 18-1-2011 by PinkAndBlack because: (no reason given)

That's not true. There are things that I do not partake in, simply because of the consequences of being caught. So, punishment as a deterrent does work....at least for me....and I suspect the same goes for many others as well.

It works to deter some, but it never prevents it from occurring.

Laws can only punish, never prevent.

Nothing is preventing you from committing murder, however laws may deter you from murder.

I think what he is getting at is the use of laws as preventative measures, rather than deterrents.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by PinkAndBlack

Originally posted by Aggie Man
... However, punishment as a deterrent does not always work.

edit on 18-1-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)

Punishment as a deterrent does not work. Period.

edit on 18-1-2011 by PinkAndBlack because: (no reason given)

That's not true. There are things that I do not partake in, simply because of the consequences of being caught. So, punishment as a deterrent does work....at least for me....and I suspect the same goes for many others as well.

Of course! Even ATS has law. I'm really not sure what this thread is all about. You may not stop it first time, but you can stop repeat offenders. That's why ATS sometimes bans people if necessary.

I'm sure you already know all of this but whatever.

Laws and the penal system are there for a number of reason.

1 As has been stated to allow for the punishment of offenders

2 To allow for the rehabilitation of the offenders

3 To keep the offenders away from the general population until such time that they are not considered dangerous to that population any more

4 As a deterrent from people committing crime in the first place

The guilt or not of the person accused of a crime is, as Im sure you know again, is decided upon by a jury of that persons peers and the sentence is given out by someone called a judge who knows the letter of the law and according to his / her experience and interpretation of the law decides upon which sentence would be appropriate.

Im sure all this stuffs on wikipedia