Is crime prevention moral?

[Racoon]

Is Crime Prevention Immoral??

No!

Use this example:

 

A terrorist cell is ready to kill a bunch of people.

But surveilance and Intel is on their ***.

 

As the cell gets ready to unload their destructive capabilities, They get shot/killed dead before it happens...

Is that immoral???

 

NO!

[ronthepon]

Crime prevension should focus on preventing crime not killing or punishing the ones at fault.

I mean capture them with traquiliser darts, take them to brainwash facilities and make them repent their actions. (sorry if im getting a little extrimist myself) Then teach them the fruits of peace and give the decent jobs and see how the world becomes ideal.

(Yes, yes I know that i'm living in a dreamworld...)

 

When the crime preventor himself becomes a sinner, then what becomes of morality?

[Panjandrum]

#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!

 

Interesting, but off-topic. Maybe you could start a new thread to discuss the morality of ownership and theft?

 

#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. :evil:

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.

 

Oh, I agree 100%. But then, Idnt really call myself a very moral person ;)

 

Im not talking about defending yourself, but getting 'retribution' for someone wronging you. Way I see it, if someone was smart enough to trick me and rob me blind, and I didnt catch them in the act, id prolly just think gg to them, and think no more about it. If I caught them in the act, Id prolly kill them or try pretty hard to do so. How about you? Would you want to get someone back if they robbed you while you were out?

 

#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...

 

A terrorist cell is ready to kill a bunch of people.

But surveilance and Intel is on their ***.

 

As the cell gets ready to unload their destructive capabilities, They get shot/killed dead before it happens...

Is that immoral???

 

NO!

 

Once again, this is crime fighting, not crime prevention. By building a bomb or getting hold of guns, theyve broken the law and thus are outside our area of concern. What if you built a mind-reading hat, and knew for 100% certain that some guy opposite you on the subway was planning to commit a crime you find morally unacceptable. How would you react? Would you punish him for merely _thinking_ about doing it? Would it be moral to do so, given that thinking about commiting a crime is not illegal, or even immoral, really?

 

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

 

:D

 

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.

 

Good for him. As Ive said before, the only kind of action I would consider immoral is one that limits the autonomy of another, so Idnt have any problem with someone beatin the tar outta me if I was dumb enough to ask for it.

 

 

Crime Prevention is Moral. :naughty:

 

QED? ;)

[Panjandrum]

Crime prevension should focus on preventing crime not killing or punishing the ones at fault.

I mean capture them with traquiliser darts, take them to brainwash facilities and make them repent their actions. (sorry if im getting a little extrimist myself) Then teach them the fruits of peace and give the decent jobs and see how the world becomes ideal.

(Yes, yes I know that i'm living in a dreamworld...)

 

When the crime preventor himself becomes a sinner, then what becomes of morality?

 

 

 

But I would contend that the very act of preventing crime is inherently immoral. Consider: you intend to severly punish and brainwash someone who has actually committed no crime, who has hurt no-one, who may not even have intended to go thru with thier propossed actions, or who may never have had the opportunity to do it. In what possible way is that moral behaviour?

 

What if a nation such as North Korea were to adopt your policies, interring and brainwashing anyone suspected of being pro-democracy? In a totalitarian state, being opposed to the ruler is a serious crime, so by your reckoning, such a policy would be moral. Is this really what you think?

[ronthepon]

What if a nation such as North Korea were to adopt your policies, interring and brainwashing anyone suspected of being pro-democracy? In a totalitarian state, being opposed to the ruler is a serious crime, so by your reckoning, such a policy would be moral. Is this really what you think?

 

By the way, I admit that I was streching my words a bit... by brainwash I meant counsel.

 

Crime prevention is a whole different business from punishing wrongdoers. Prevent a guy from doing bad. Dont wait for him to do bad and kill him for it.

 

Crime prevention in a harsh way is a process of sacrificing the unit for the good of the society. You sacrifice the wrongdoer's well being so that everybody else is well.

 

And well, I do think that crime prevention is different from sin-prevention.(Context: States form their own laws)

[Racoon]

Oh, I agree 100%. But then, Idnt really call myself a very moral person ;)

 

Once again, this is crime fighting, not crime prevention. By building a bomb or getting hold of guns, theyve broken the law and thus are outside our area of concern. What if you built a mind-reading hat, and knew for 100% certain that some guy opposite you on the subway was planning to commit a crime you find morally unacceptable.

 

What do you consider Moral Panj?? ;)

Is there anything?

 

Shooting Dead the Terrorist before he/she can commit the crime is perfectly OK.

Thats what they are doing now.

And I have no problem with it.

 

Why are you making things so difficult?

 

I can see what you are saying, but why wait until it happens??

Pre - Emptive.

 

What kind of Latte do you like?

the next one is on me OK?

We'll sit down and discuss life and Moral Algebra.. :shrug:

 

What other kinds of Science do you like??

[Racoon]

But I would contend that the very act of preventing crime is inherently immoral. Consider: you intend to severly punish and brainwash someone who has actually committed no crime, who has hurt no-one, who may not even have intended to go thru with thier propossed actions, or who may never have had the opportunity to do it. In what possible way is that moral behaviour?

 

You are seriously sounding like a Sleeper Cell waiting to do their thing. :)

I had to call Scottland Yard on you :)

 

We are Not in North Korea. Could you explain that a little more?

 

If Crime IS immoral, then preventing it is Moral.

F*ck the perpetrators. they can get killed or rot in jail.

 

Why are you trying to defend the Ill-minded?

you would make a great defense attorney.

too bad they are considered "enemy combatants" :)

and aren't afforded the due process...

 

100% sure? yeah. dude is dead.

Why are you so vehement in defending "would be crooks and bad guys?"

 

If you were "sure" they would commit an attrocity, then why is stopping them immoral??

that sounds like hippocricy to me Panj.? ;)

 

What exactly do you wish to achieve?

[Cedars]

You are seriously sounding like a Sleeper Cell waiting to do their thing. :)

I had to call Scottland Yard on you :)

 

We are Not in North Korea. Could you explain that a little more?

 

If Crime IS immoral, then preventing it is Moral.

F*ck the perpetrators. they can get killed or rot in jail.

 

Why are you trying to defend the Ill-minded?

you would make a great defense attorney.

too bad they are considered "enemy combatants" ;)

and aren't afforded the due process...

 

100% sure? yeah. dude is dead.

Why are you so vehement in defending "would be crooks and bad guys?"

 

If you were "sure" they would commit an attrocity, then why is stopping them immoral??

that sounds like hippocricy to me Panj.? :D

 

What exactly do you wish to achieve?

 

Racoon, your argueing morality with a self proclaimed sociopath. If your just having fun, keep going dude.

 

But if your not and are seriously pondering the responses of someone who would classify themselves this way, your playing into the hands of this category of disfunctional reasoning. And that would be a waste of your time as a valued resource in this forum. :)

[Panjandrum]

By the way, I admit that I was streching my words a bit... by brainwash I meant counsel.

 

Crime prevention is a whole different business from punishing wrongdoers. Prevent a guy from doing bad. Dont wait for him to do bad and kill him for it.

 

Crime prevention in a harsh way is a process of sacrificing the unit for the good of the society. You sacrifice the wrongdoer's well being so that everybody else is well.

 

And well, I do think that crime prevention is different from sin-prevention.(Context: States form their own laws)

 

So you are a Utilitarian? the greatest good for the greatest number, and **** those who fall between the gaps? But that implies that you know whats best for people. I would not be so arrogant myself. Consider: what if the British had taken your advice in the 1760's? They knew who therabble-rousers were, but were constrained by thier morality from simply arresting them and 're-educating' them. The same is true of most violent revolutions, which would lead to a world of totalitarian rulers and secret police if everyone accepted your views.

[Panjandrum]

You are seriously sounding like a Sleeper Cell waiting to do their thing. :rolleyes:

I had to call Scottland Yard on you :)

 

We are Not in North Korea. Could you explain that a little more?

 

I was answering Ronthepons post. If you read carefully, you will see that I am opposed to the very thing you accuse me of.

[Panjandrum]

Racoon, your argueing morality with a self proclaimed sociopath. If your just having fun, keep going dude.

 

But if your not and are seriously pondering the responses of someone who would classify themselves this way, your playing into the hands of this category of disfunctional reasoning. And that would be a waste of your time as a valued resource in this forum. :rolleyes:

 

Nothing I post is posted for the sake of argument. I can support all my contentions, I have a clear and pretty complete system of morality of my own.

 

I fail to see why my unasked for disability should disqualify me from engaging in discussions. Would you so readily dismiss the views of someone who is blind, or someone with dyslexia?

[Cedars]

Nothing I post is posted for the sake of argument. I can support all my contentions, I have a clear and pretty complete system of morality of my own.

 

I fail to see why my unasked for disability should disqualify me from engaging in discussions. Would you so readily dismiss the views of someone who is blind, or someone with dyslexia?

 

I never claimed your posts were for the sake of arguement. Argueing about morality from a sociopaths perspective would seem to be more along the lines of feeding the sickness of their (the sociopaths) thought pattern. Of course you believe you have supported your contentions, but this is about crime and morality. So if you are as you claim (a sociopath) and based on your what ifs and blatent statements, its obvious to me you are posting under this topic to feel self gratification and feeding your mental needs try to feel superior to (or victimized by) those who argue with you.

 

Nor did I encourage anyone to discontinue the course of the conversation, that is your manipulation of what was said. If someone who is blind is arguing that the better condition is blindness, or the dyslexic thinks writing should be adapted to fit their particular struggle, I think it would be acceptable to dismiss this point of view as absurd. But those two conditions are not nearly descriptive enough to compare to the active sociopath is it?

 

A better (but not perfect) comparison would be arguing with a pedophile over whether child love is moral. Or arguing with a pyromanic over whether children should play with matches.

 

I have read somewhere that the best defense of self against a sociopath is distance.

 

Have a nice day :cup:

[ronthepon]

Maybe you did not understand my true feelings:

 

So you are a Utilitarian? the greatest good for the greatest number, and **** those who fall between the gaps? But that implies that you know whats best for people. I would not be so arrogant myself. Consider: what if the British had taken your advice in the 1760's? They knew who therabble-rousers were, but were constrained by thier morality from simply arresting them and 're-educating' them. The same is true of most violent revolutions, which would lead to a world of totalitarian rulers and secret police if everyone accepted your views.

 

I had said that I consider crime prevention from sin prevention.

Even I do not prefer killing to counselling, and if you take a mnute to look at a few of my previous posts in this thread, you will see what I mean.

 

My first point:

the greatest good for the greatest number, and **** those who fall between the gaps? But that implies that you know whats best for people. I would not be so arrogant myself.

I would like to ask you a question.

Provided the choice that one man kills ten innocent men, or that man be killed, which choice would you select.

Please post a answer to this question.

 

If you still consider me to be arrogant, after answering this question out in this open thread, I shall not understand your intentions.

 

Next point.

The same is true of most violent revolutions, which would lead to a world of totalitarian rulers and secret police if everyone accepted your views

In such cases, who is the majority? The revolters or the ones revolted against? The revolters are too many people! They are the society!

I am for sacrificing the unit for the good of the society, not trampling over half the society for the other half.

[ronthepon]

So you are a Utilitarian? the greatest good for the greatest number, and **** those who fall between the gaps? But that implies that you know whats best for people. I would not be so arrogant myself. Consider: what if the British had taken your advice in the 1760's? They knew who therabble-rousers were, but were constrained by thier morality from simply arresting them and 're-educating' them. The same is true of most violent revolutions, which would lead to a world of totalitarian rulers and secret police if everyone accepted your views.

 

Let me place some points that would help me justify. Please read it all this time, Pajandrum.

 

1: Suppose I give you a choice. Either allow a person to kill ten other innocent people, or have the killer killed. Which option would you choose? I will rely on your honor to trust that you will answer this question soon.

 

2: The question of revolts. In the time of a revolt, it is not the unit sacrificed for the society when the revolters are brutually murdered. look at what I had said earlier.

 

Crime prevention in a harsh way is a process of sacrificing the unit for the good of the society.

On crushing the revolt brutually, we do not sacrifice the unit. We crush half the society for the other half. In this case, we should counsel.

 

Take the same point I gave in a more light hearted manner in the last post.

by brainwash I meant counsel.

 

3: I never said that I suggest violent crime prevention anyway. My words were twisted out of meaning by my lack of clear communication abilities.

Crime prevention in a harsh way is a process of sacrificing the unit for the good of the society.

The highlighted portion means: harsh crime prevention.

 

 

My apologies for any offence I may have accidentially made. That is not my intention for any one, especially Panjandrum.

[Racoon]

Racoon, your argueing morality with a self proclaimed sociopath. If your just having fun, keep going dude.

 

And that would be a waste of your time as a valued resource in this forum. :)

 

I'm just having fun! :hihi:

 

Panj is my favorite sociopath. :) :lol:

And I still maintain that violent or property crime prevention is moral

 

Would allowing crime to happen be Moral??

 

(ps, good posts ronthepon dude)

[Panjandrum]

Will respond later. Going out now.

[Panjandrum]

Let me place some points that would help me justify. Please read it all this time, Pajandrum.

 

1: Suppose I give you a choice. Either allow a person to kill ten other innocent people, or have the killer killed. Which option would you choose? I will rely on your honor to trust that you will answer this question soon.

 

Interesting thing to rely on. No matter, I will answer anyway. I dont nhave to choose either option. I can follow the man, if I know he plans to kill, and accost him once he actually attacks someone. Only at that point has he violated morality, and therefore voided his right to autonomy. If this was not possible for whatever reason, such as if he were in another country, I would let him kill. Im not my brothers keeper.

 

2: The question of revolts. In the time of a revolt, it is not the unit sacrificed for the society when the revolters are brutually murdered. look at what I had said earlier.

 

On crushing the revolt brutually, we do not sacrifice the unit. We crush half the society for the other half. In this case, we should counsel.

 

This is extremly unclear. please rephrase.

 

3: I never said that I suggest violent crime prevention anyway. My words were twisted out of meaning by my lack of clear communication abilities.

The highlighted portion means: harsh crime prevention.

 

Your original post was quite extreme. If you have reconsidered your position thats fine, but I still contend that preventing crime, by which I mean violating the autonomy of someone who has not yet done anything wrong, is inherently immoral. Fighting crime, by which I mean opposing someone who has already broken the law, is a diffrent matter entierly. By definition, a revoloter who has actually taken up arms has broken the law. One who merely thinks about doing so has not. From your post, it seemed you were in favour of rounding both up and re-educating them. Such would be both inhuman and immoral.

 

My apologies for any offence I may have accidentially made. That is not my intention for any one, especially Panjandrum.

 

None taken.