• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When is crime wrong?

It's really a long story because the trial lasted a week. I was there every day, but the jury was not there for one day, and testimony was given that day that the jury was never allowed to hear.

A young man, a juvenile at the time, shot both his parents in the kitchen on a Sunday morning. He left the house in that rural part of the county, flagged down the first deputy he saw, climbed in the back seat of the squad car and spilled his guts to the deputy. He could not wait to tell his sordid story to somebody, and it was a most sordid story. He did take the stand, and it was brutal to hear.

He had been sodomized by his father since an early age. Eventually he shared that with his mother and begged for her intervention. She rejected him, and told him to not talk about it. Secrets to be kept she said. The mother was a twin, and had at least one other sister. It turns out all the sisters had begged her not to marry the man. It turns out the sisters scraped together and hired the attorneys to represent the boy.

IMO the jury was quite sympathetic to the defense case. The prosecutor was an asshole, and the boy's testimony was heart-rending. In the end, because the judge would not allow the jury to hear corroborating evidence, the jury convicted the boy.

You’re right. A gross miscarriage of justice if the facts are as you present them here. (I have to add that caveat or others will pounce.;))
 
I’m making the assumption the defendant was found not guilty...? This, what often appears as the court going overboard in its protection of rights, can too often result in a guilty as sin defendant going free. Such is Lady Justice...

Actually, I sense that it's the other way around more often than what we want to believe. Judges suppressing the rights of the defendant to a proper fair trial. Similar to what Thoreau72 said. In controversial cases I have seen many jurors over the years when interviewed say in hindsight, "If I had known that I never would have voted to convict."
 
I wonder when crime is "bad" and when it is simply illegal. Can crime be justified?

If it can, should we question the law that makes the relevant act illegal?

Yes. Crimes can be justified. Speeding to get your child to the hospital.

No. The law should not be questioned but the cops and DA take context into account before arresting... ticketing or charging.
 
I happened to sit in on such a trial, not as a juror, but only as an observer. I heard things the jury was not allowed to hear. The court committed a gross injustice. I lost many nights of sleep over that horrible abuse by the judge.

Judges are some of the least trustworthy people out there... ironically.
 
Each must be considered on a case by case basis. Situational ethics.

You probably are right. My brain likes to organize things more consistently, so I spend a lot of time thinking about these things.
 
It's really a long story because the trial lasted a week. I was there every day, but the jury was not there for one day, and testimony was given that day that the jury was never allowed to hear.

A young man, a juvenile at the time, shot both his parents in the kitchen on a Sunday morning. He left the house in that rural part of the county, flagged down the first deputy he saw, climbed in the back seat of the squad car and spilled his guts to the deputy. He could not wait to tell his sordid story to somebody, and it was a most sordid story. He did take the stand, and it was brutal to hear.

He had been sodomized by his father since an early age. Eventually he shared that with his mother and begged for her intervention. She rejected him, and told him to not talk about it. Secrets to be kept she said. The mother was a twin, and had at least one other sister. It turns out all the sisters had begged her not to marry the man. It turns out the sisters scraped together and hired the attorneys to represent the boy.

IMO the jury was quite sympathetic to the defense case. The prosecutor was an asshole, and the boy's testimony was heart-rending. In the end, because the judge would not allow the jury to hear corroborating evidence, the jury convicted the boy.

What a horrible and messed up story. How old was the defendant? Did he ask for help from anyone besides his mom? If no one could save him except himself, then that is exactly the sort of justified crime that I originally meant.
 
Actually, I sense that it's the other way around more often than what we want to believe. Judges suppressing the rights of the defendant to a proper fair trial. Similar to what Thoreau72 said. In controversial cases I have seen many jurors over the years when interviewed say in hindsight, "If I had known that I never would have voted to convict."

Recall that is exactly what the jurors in the Branch Davidian trial said when interviewed by Connie Chung.
 
What a horrible and messed up story. How old was the defendant? Did he ask for help from anyone besides his mom? If no one could save him except himself, then that is exactly the sort of justified crime that I originally meant.

He was a juvenile at the time of the shooting, I think 15 or 16. He spent a few years in jail before it went to trial. Then he was sentenced to life in prison, although that was also an incorrect sentence and is on appeal. I do not recall if he asked anyone else for help.

It was fairly well known in family circles that the father was bad, and that was some of the facts the jury never got to hear. Of course the judge was a former prosecutor, as is frequently the case.
 
That's a very libertarian perspective with which I completely agree.

How can we gauge the indirect harm of crime? For example, I steal food from a chain grocer to feed a starving person because neither that person nor I have any money. Someone at the store loses her job because the inventory was off. Was it a justified crime?

I find it sad that you are an educator. You sorely need an education in real life.
 
I had a good chat with another poster the other day. It made me consider the nature of crime. The word has separate legal and ethical implications.

I wonder when crime is "bad" and when it is simply illegal. Can crime be justified? If it can, should we question the law that makes the relevant act illegal?

ZBr5P9o.png
 
I find it sad that you are an educator. You sorely need an education in real life.

Have I done something to offend you? I have never even seen your name in this forum before you showed up in this thread and started blasting me.

If you have some sort of justification for your poor attitude and strange, snide comments, share it now. Otherwise, back the **** off before you actually provoke me and I return the favor.
 
Have I done something to offend you? I have never even seen your name in this forum before you showed up in this thread and started blasting me.

If you have some sort of justification for your poor attitude and strange, snide comments, share it now. Otherwise, back the **** off before you actually provoke me and I return the favor.

Simply, I find you naive and insincere.
 
My opinion would be if there is harm done, physical harm or financial harm is in stealing cars or jewelry for money would be wrong.
However, wrong and illegal are not necessarily the same thing.
Remember, once almost everything we do now was illegal in this country at one time and is still illegal in other parts of the world.
That does not mean it is wrong...in our eyes at least. Through other eyes it may be horrendous.
Rather than speak in general, I will provide an example.

Marijuana: When I was a kid, one joint was a felony in my state. One joint is still a felony with one year in prison in some parishes in Louisiana. Veterans still cannot legally be treated with it, yet a different type of THC in it is very effective in treating childhood epilepsy.
Personally, I feel...
1. Veterans who need the treatment should have it provided to them
2. Children who can benefit from the treatment should be provided with it.
3. No one should do a one year prison term for a joint.

I think this is a real good example of wrong vs. illegal.
 
Based on what?

Based on you seeing the murdered and missing as causes. Based on esoteric debate over criminality being wrong or not which will never resolve anything, when there are far greater issues of true crimes in dire need of being addressed.
 
Based on you seeing the murdered and missing as causes. Based on esoteric debate over criminality being wrong or not which will never resolve anything, when there are far greater issues of true crimes in dire need of being addressed.

That post doesn't make any sense. Crimes against the state are seldom 'wrong' in any meaningful way, if they ever are.
 
That post doesn't make any sense. Crimes against the state are seldom 'wrong' in any meaningful way, if they ever are.

Try saying that to those who lived under Nicolae Ceaușescu. Speaking of the naive and you chime in.
 
Based on you seeing the murdered and missing as causes. Based on esoteric debate over criminality being wrong or not which will never resolve anything, when there are far greater issues of true crimes in dire need of being addressed.

There is something wrong with you. Stay away from me.
 
Then why, ethically speaking, is stealing to provide food for your family acceptable while stealing to make a buck is wrong?

Wage theft is fine, other forms of theft are the end of the world as we know it:

e1aaa15178035b1c60d8815d91decf6b.jpg


So sayeth the kings and lords, who exploit the starving serfs and then whine about losing a few trinkets.
 
I had a good chat with another poster the other day. It made me consider the nature of crime. The word has separate legal and ethical implications.

I wonder when crime is "bad" and when it is simply illegal. Can crime be justified? If it can, should we question the law that makes the relevant act illegal?


qcjfcSL.png
 
Back
Top Bottom