Is crime prevention moral?

[Cedars]

I was wondering if anyone else was puzzled as to why it is both legal and considered moral to prevent a person from commiting a crime. Suppose, for instance, that the police overheard a man talking with his friends about how he planned to go on a gun rampage, would the police be moraly justified in arresting him? Before he commits any crime?

 

I'm not so much interested in the law here, since that is arbitrary, but in moral issuses. Is it moral to prevent immorality?

 

Using the police for an example here is probably the wrong approach. Morality does not come into it because the police have an employment obligation to follow up on a threat. There are laws about making terroristic threats that existed before 9/11.

 

In Red Lake MN there was a school shooting a year ago. Because of the laws and such protecting minors, not much about who knew what has come forth. One person was charged with a crime and pled guilty. News follow-ups indicate as many as 37 juveniles were aware threats were being made. What isnt know is to what degree one could say they were obligated to report what they were told, or overheard.

 

What is known is most (if not all) of the 37 did not change their habits (they went to school the day of the shooting) so I would wonder, how much of the information they had was valid.

 

That aside I would have to say if the people who were allegedly told an event of this magnitude was to occur that day, and they skipped school that day to avoid being involved, but did nothing to prevent this particular crime, they would have violated moral ethics.

 

By avoiding this crime they would have done two things that fall under moral obligation in my opinion.

 

They would have allowed the loss of life and;

they would have taken action to ensure their survival without regard to the rights of the other victims.

[Panjandrum]

By avoiding this crime they would have done two things that fall under moral obligation in my opinion.

 

They would have allowed the loss of life and;

they would have taken action to ensure their survival without regard to the rights of the other victims.

 

I disagree. You cannot be held accountable for non-actions, the concept of a sin of omission is fundamentally flawed. But that is not what i was asking. If someone chose to act to prevent a crime, would you consider that action to be moral?

 

It is quite evident that a great deal of thought and energy goes into the entire legal system of a democratic society, and the result, while not perfect, is the foundation of civilized society. It does not happen by chance, and is purposful in maintaining peace and order between large and diverse populations.

 

I agree. this is why I find it so perplexing, since such complexity based on arbitrary decsisions seems absurd.

[Cedars]

I disagree. You cannot be held accountable for non-actions, the concept of a sin of omission is fundamentally flawed. But that is not what i was asking. If someone chose to act to prevent a crime, would you consider that action to be moral?

 

I used that example because I thought it to be obvious that to not prevent a school shooting is immoral. When dealing with morality, you most certainly can be held responsible for non-action. It depends on whos morality is being used as the guide. That depends on the situation. A doctor who passes by someone down on the street with a medical issue has an ethical responsiblity to stop and render aid, as I understand it. But whether or not he is morally obligated depends on his own perception of morality.

 

As far as prevent 'a crime' you would need to define that crime more. I do not think all crime needs me to take an action on, should I know it is going to occur. Pot smoking comes to mind. But thats my morality speaking there. I dont think its immoral to smoke pot so I havent a moral obligation to prevent that crime.

[TheBigDog]

I agree. this is why I find it so perplexing, since such complexity based on arbitrary decsisions seems absurd.

I stated that the laws are not arbitrary. You agreed. You then said you were perplexed by that very fact because laws seem so arbitrary...

 

Huh???:girl_hug:

 

They seem arbitrary to you because they are based upon concensus of public moral standards. And you and I have already established that you are by definition amoral. So my question to you is this...

 

Why do you keep asking? If you are either incapable of understanding, or refuse to acknowledge understanding, then what is your purpose in repeatedly asking people to engage you in the discussion?

 

Bill

[Racoon]

I don't understand this thread?

there have been some valid points made

 

But if Crime IS immoral - then Crime Prevention IS NOT!

 

Its not that complicated... Unless you are a Bounty Hunter or Bail Bondsman

[infamous]

 

Why do you keep asking? If you are either incapable of understanding, or refuse to acknowledge understanding, then what is your purpose in repeatedly asking people to engage you in the discussion?

 

Bill

Some people, for lack of anything better to do, just like to stir the pot. There are none so blind as those who will not see.................Infy

[Queso]

Minute men got it easy,

but I think easy sucks.

[Panjandrum]

Why do you keep asking? If you are either incapable of understanding, or refuse to acknowledge understanding, then what is your purpose in repeatedly asking people to engage you in the discussion?

 

Bill

 

I keep asking prescisly because I do not understand. This is an important area for me to comprehend on my path of personal improvement. Im sorry I seem obtuse to you. If I seem to be asking the same question over and over it is because I dont understand your answers.

 

Some people, for lack of anything better to do, just like to stir the pot. There are none so blind as those who will not see.................Infy

 

If I wanted to stir pots, I would ask questions about eugenucs, racial diffrences or incest. The questions Im asking are personally important to me. Im not here to troll or flame, there are plenty of shitty forums for me to do that, but precious few decent ones where I might legitimately hope for comprehensible answers.

[Panjandrum]

Let me just add that I do appreciate all your help on this topic. While I may strike you as repellent, please bear in mind that I did not ask for my disability. I am as much a victim of my genes as a schizophrenic or haemophiliac, and even if my goal is impossible, I surely deserve the opportunity to persue it.

[nkt]

Most laws are entirely arbitary. They have to be, as both the USA and the UK have had fully filled-out legal systems for hundreds of years.

 

In the UK we are seeing the government pass hundreds of laws, many of them very complex and needing a lot of thought, in just a few days. Some of the laws are then voted in faster than anyone could actually read the entire legal document!

 

The vast majority of these laws are entirely arbitary, since if they were based on a solid moral reasoning, they would have been passed many years ago.

 

Simple possession of the wrong shaped inert bit of lead can get you prison time, even with a firearms certificate (license to have a gun), while the one next to it is totally legal, even without any form of certificate. Yet they are from the same production line, look the same, and are in fact merely labelled differently! Tell me that's not completely wrong, and completely arbitary.

[TheBigDog]

Most laws are entirely arbitary. They have to be, as both the USA and the UK have had fully filled-out legal systems for hundreds of years.

 

In the UK we are seeing the government pass hundreds of laws, many of them very complex and needing a lot of thought, in just a few days. Some of the laws are then voted in faster than anyone could actually read the entire legal document!

 

The vast majority of these laws are entirely arbitary, since if they were based on a solid moral reasoning, they would have been passed many years ago.

 

Simple possession of the wrong shaped inert bit of lead can get you prison time, even with a firearms certificate (license to have a gun), while the one next to it is totally legal, even without any form of certificate. Yet they are from the same production line, look the same, and are in fact merely labelled differently! Tell me that's not completely wrong, and completely arbitary.

I can see the frustration in that. But I think you are confusing arbitrary with asinine.

 

Bill

[Racoon]

So people only obey laws they find convinient? Doesnt that imply they are indeed entierly arbitrary? And if law follows from morality, doesnt that mean morality is a learnt, arbitrary set of rules?

 

"The more laws you create, the more people will break them"

__Lao Tzu

 

Laws entirely arbitrary? No

Some laws arbitrary? Yes

I ride my Mtn Bike on the sidewalk here in the city/suburbs even though its technically illegal. Why? because Its safer, with plenty of terrible drivers on the road, even with bike lanes.

 

What if you were at a cafe Panjandrum, and some guy just stole an old ladies purse? And what If you stuck out your leg and tripped the thief and recovered the purse for the lady? would you consider that crime prevention to be immoral?

No, because you are preventing someone from taking someone elses money and property. (that they earned and need )

 

There shouldn't be so many laws.

There should be some/enough laws that protect the equality and physical safety of the citizenry...

 

Laws shouldn't hold people down.

But they should be there so you don't run amok, and do whatever you goddamned well please, at the expense of someone elses property or physical well being...

[ronthepon]

What if you were at a cafe Panjandrum, and some guy just stole an old ladies purse? And what If you stuck out your leg and tripped the thief and recovered the purse for the lady? would you consider that crime prevention to be immoral?

No, because you are preventing someone from taking someone elses money and property. (that they earned and need )

Naturally, It would not be immoral but what if the guy would land on his face, breaking his nose and knocking all his teeth out and damaging his eyes and... landing up critically injured and comatose in a hospital?

 

My point is that crime prevention does get to a length it should'nt at times. Take the times where dictatorships ruled for examples.

 

That's when crime prevention goes to the immoral side.

[Racoon]

Naturally, It would not be immoral but what if the guy would land on his face, breaking his nose and knocking all his teeth out and damaging his eyes and... landing up critically injured and comatose in a hospital?

 

Then it becomes an issue of cause/effect.

 

Had the thief not taken the purse, then there would not be a possible scenario of serious injury.

Its not immoral to try and return the purse, because you are trying to restore rightful ownership.

 

you then think, "that guy had it it coming to him then :naughty:" and that should be a lesson in not breaking the rules of society that protect property and physical safety.

Sorry about your Luck. :)

Do the right thing the First Time.

Pain is the best teacher sometimes.

 

Same thing if someone breaks into your house.

Shoot him/her. >> hopefully not dead.

Because even if he was only trying to steal your Laptop, you can not allow someone to violate common decency on that level.

 

And if someone is trying to Kill you? And you Beat the crap out of them to save your life?

That would be "crime prevention" and Not Immoral either.

 

Think about it. Let someone beat you up or try and kill you;

"I'd defend myself but No, because hurting the aggressor in return would be immoral; So I'll just let them do what they want" :star: >>> :phones:

Hell No.

[Panjandrum]

What if you were at a cafe Panjandrum, and some guy just stole an old ladies purse? And what If you stuck out your leg and tripped the thief and recovered the purse for the lady? would you consider that crime prevention to be immoral?

No, because you are preventing someone from taking someone elses money and property. (that they earned and need )

 

This is an example of crime fighting, not of crime prevention. By grabbing the bag, the thief has commited a crime and he therefore falls outside the scope of our discussion.

 

Consider this: would I be justifyed in having the 'thief' arrested _before_ he grabs the bag? Before he even goes for it, hell before he even sees it? Regardless of how certain you are he is about to comit a crime, acting against him before he actually does is immoral.

[Panjandrum]

Then it becomes an issue of cause/effect.

 

Had the thief not taken the purse, then there would not be a possible scenario of serious injury.

 

You might as well argue that if hednt have eaten a peach that morning hednt have been injured. That is not an example of cause and effect, but of poetic justice.

 

Its not immoral to try and return the purse, because you are trying to restore rightful ownership.

 

Oh dear, such devotion to attatchment! You'll make Buddah cry :*(

 

Who is to say whether owenership is moral or immoral? Great thinkers are divided on the matter. Perhaps you could share the insight they lacked on this matter?

 

you then think, "that guy had it it coming to him then :naughty:" and that should be a lesson in not breaking the rules of society that protect property and physical safety.

 

This, I belive, is either schadenfruede or a decidedly unelightened attachment to vengence. Either way, tis also irrelevant.

 

Same thing if someone breaks into your house.

Shoot him/her. >> hopefully not dead.

Because even if he was only trying to steal your Laptop, you can not allow someone to violate common decency on that level.

 

Attachment to vengence then, Id guess. You really put the value of you material possessions above the lives of your fellow humans? The path of Buddah is myseterious indeed.

 

And if someone is trying to Kill you? And you Beat the crap out of them to save your life?

That would be "crime prevention" and Not Immoral either.

 

Another example of crime fighting, not crime prevention. Would it be moral to kill him if you merely suspected very strongly that he meant to kill you? Id say yes, but I suspect Im in the minority.

[Racoon]

#1) Oh dear, such devotion to attatchment! You'll make Buddah cry :*(

 

#2) Who is to say whether owenership is moral or immoral? Great thinkers are divided on the matter. Perhaps you could share the insight they lacked on this matter

 

#3) Attachment to vengence then, Id guess. You really put the value of you material possessions above the lives of your fellow humans? The path of Buddah is myseterious indeed.

 

#4) Another example of crime fighting, not crime prevention. Would it be moral to kill him if you merely suspected very strongly that he meant to kill you? Id say yes, but I suspect Im in the minority.

 

 

#1) Its Not my attachment. Its the other citizen who is being violated.

Its called Respect

While I may not mind if someone took my money, I would have issues with them taking my ID, and using it for ID theft purposes. people are just "bad" that way.

 

#2) Ownership? Say you work at a store; and spend your time and energy to make money,>> then that money is yours. Because you spent your time and effort. That is what we have. Our Time and Our Energy. and our reward is money or results.

 

If someone didn't want to wake up in the morning and actually Go to work, but rather just take it from you, then Yes, that is Immoral!

 

#3) Attachment to vengence? don't put words in my mouth. If some-one started punching you, are you just going to stand there and take it?

No! Fight-Flight mechanism. Evolution. :confused:

You cannot gauge a stranger violating your personal space with anything but your survival and best interests at heart and mind. They chose to violate you first.

 

#4) If you were Intent on perpetrating a serious crime, then "nipping it in the bud" is prefferable. You stop people with Bad Intentions before they have a chance to act them out. Absolutely.

Pre-emptive strike.

If they were innocent, and merely Bullshitting, then that will become apparent. And they will soon be along their merry little way...

 

It isn't as hard to tell if someone is lying and/or bullshitting as you might think.

 

Take Bruce Lee for example.

He was a peaceful Buddhist. But had powerful Kung-Fu.

If some dude stepped to him, and many did; Dude got his *** beat! and deserved it.

Just mind your own goddamned business. And don't try to take advantage.

 

If you go looking for trouble, then the consequences are your own damn fault.

whether you get away clean, or end up in a Coma.

 

As you sow, so shall you reap.

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

(parts of the Bible I do agree with)

 

Crime Prevention is Moral. :cup: