Is crime prevention moral?

[ronthepon]

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.

In other words, you would bother to save the 10 people. I'll make the question tighter. The guy is pointing a grenade at the 10 people from a good distance and you have a gun. Now you will naturally say that you will kill the guy.

 

 

 

This is extremly unclear. please rephrase.

When we kill all the revolters of brutually destroy them anyhow, we do not follow the tactic "sacrifice the unit for the society"

 

The revolters are a big part of the society. If we crush them, we are crushing a big part of the society.

 

Finally, I am pleased that we got it worked out. Thanks for being a gentleman, Pajandrum.

[Panjandrum]

In other words, you would bother to save the 10 people. I'll make the question tighter. The guy is pointing a grenade at the 10 people from a good distance and you have a gun. Now you will naturally say that you will kill the guy.

 

Yes, I would. But only after he had thrown the grenade.

 

When we kill all the revolters of brutually destroy them anyhow, we do not follow the tactic "sacrifice the unit for the society"

 

The revolters are a big part of the society. If we crush them, we are crushing a big part of the society.

 

So you are saying that a revolt is a special case, and should not be considered to fall under a theory of crime prevention? Im not sure why you think this. Revolters kill and destroy, and they are not always (or indeed usually) right or justified.

 

If you knew a cabal of BJP extremists where planning a coup in New Dehli, intending to impose a ruthless ultra-nationistic regime and to invade Pakistan, would you wish to have them crushed? Even before they have acted on thier plan? Even before they have commited the crime of sedition by discussing the specifics of thier plan between themselves?

 

What if, somehow, a single person were capable of couping a country without need of co-conspiritors? He has not committed any crime, and until he actually performs his coup, he will not commit any crime. I assume you would have no moral objection to preventing him from carrying out his coup, but how do you justify the violation of an innocent persons autonomy?

[ronthepon]

Yes, I would. But only after he had thrown the grenade.

:D

Some things wont change. If you do so then you kill not only the man throwing the grenade, but also do you become responsible for the death of the ten innocents.

 

 

 

So you are saying that a revolt is a special case, and should not be considered to fall under a theory of crime prevention? Im not sure why you think this. Revolters kill and destroy, and they are not always (or indeed usually) right or justified.

(Well well. look whose talking)(just kidding...)

 

No! that is definitely not what I meant!

What I really meant was that in a revolution, though crime prevention is needed, we cannot afford to resort to forced violence.

That's where the other methods come in.

 

 

What if, somehow, a single person were capable of couping a country without need of co-conspiritors? He has not committed any crime, and until he actually performs his coup, he will not commit any crime. I assume you would have no moral objection to preventing him from carrying out his coup, but how do you justify the violation of an innocent persons autonomy?

Well, that is a point. Let me simply say "Prevention is better than cure"

 

Why let a guy do a crime at all? Crime prevention or Crime punishing?

Maybe that single person should be brought to a psychatrist and be mentally helped.

Violation of an innocent person's autonomy. Hmmm... tough one.

 

Well, I do have an answer. The privacy of a person is a time given by the society, the bigger unit which feeds the man, to the man to enjoy his pursuits. But if the pursuits of the man are destructive. Murderous. What right does the man have to keep his privacy?

 

If you knew a cabal of BJP extremists where planning a coup in New Dehli, intending to impose a ruthless ultra-nationistic regime and to invade Pakistan, would you wish to have them crushed? Even before they have acted on thier plan?

I think that you have a rather bad opinion of the country's politics. In any case, what I would expect would happen would be that steps would be taken so that the plan does not succeed. That's crime prevention.

[Panjandrum]

:)

Some things wont change. If you do so then you kill not only the man throwing the grenade, but also do you become responsible for the death of the ten innocents.

 

Not at all. I am not responsible for the actions of others, only of myself. If I killed him before he had acted, I would be morally at fault and he would be innocent of any crime or immorality.

 

 

No! that is definitely not what I meant!

What I really meant was that in a revolution, though crime prevention is needed, we cannot afford to resort to forced violence.

That's where the other methods come in.

 

I see. Understood.

 

Well, that is a point. Let me simply say "Prevention is better than cure"

 

Why let a guy do a crime at all? Crime prevention or Crime punishing?

Maybe that single person should be brought to a psychatrist and be mentally helped.

 

Because to prevent a crime, you must act against someone who has done nothing wrong. Following that principle, a government can simply lock up anyone it dislkies, claiming they were planning a crime. Since you cannot see into their minds, you have no way of knowing whether this is true or false. In other words, crime prevention is a tool of oppression, it leads inexorable to tyranny.

 

Violation of an innocent person's autonomy. Hmmm... tough one.

 

Well, I do have an answer. The privacy of a person is a time given by the society, the bigger unit which feeds the man, to the man to enjoy his pursuits. But if the pursuits of the man are destructive. Murderous. What right does the man have to keep his privacy?

 

Autonomy is not in the gift of the state. Such is the argument of a dictator, I think. And from what you have written elsewhere, I doubt that you would be in favour of such.

 

I think that you have a rather bad opinion of the country's politics. In any case, what I would expect would happen would be that steps would be taken so that the plan does not succeed. That's crime prevention.

 

Twas just an example. And my question was not so much what you would expect (I agree, thats what I would expect too) but rather what you thought would be moral.

[IDMclean]

The guy is pointing a grenade at the 10 people from a good distance and you have a gun. Now you will naturally say that you will kill the guy.

 

I personally, am uninterested in the gun in this example, unless one thing fails. Question, what is the distance to cross between me and where the grenade lands?

 

Anyway that is in the immediate of a crime being commited, and not in the prestage where the crime maybe adverted.

 

Key to crime prevention is always to catch it early on.

 

Realisticly, to prevent crime the Society has to provide for it's parts. When the needs of an individual are not met, that is when crime may seep in. True prevention lies in meeting the basic nessesities of all living beings.

[Racoon]

Another of the same example:

 

Intel has infiltrated a terrorist cell.

say... MI5 :(

 

They have everything wire-tapped and recorded.

The cell goes out to do its thing, intent on killing.

 

Blast them dead! before they pull the trigger or detonation.

 

Whats the problem??

No court case that way. save taxpayer expense.

[ronthepon]

Personally, Panjandrum I would expect you to get my point better I you suffered severe losses to crime yourself, like I have.

 

Anyway, I have realised that I cannot sway anybody's opinion from here.

[Racoon]

Anyway, I have realised that I cannot sway anybody's opinion from here.

 

Not true Ron. You may sway me. :)

 

It depends on the seriousness of the crime about to be commited.

 

Mortally serious. By all means necessary. Better them than you. why wait for them to act?

That sort of crime prevention is moral.

Unless you'd rather be dead before you acted. :(

[IDMclean]

The grenade senariois solved by simple alteration to the limited choices. I could disable the culprit with a well placed shot to the shoulder. Or even to the ankle.

 

This is assuming I can use a gun at all. However in all likely hood he would have already pulled the pin, if this is the case then i would need to judge distance and most likely collateral damage. If the grenade ended up endagering the said people then I would gladly use myself or anything handy to shield the blast from others.

 

Also, It is not illegal to talk about crime, it is however illegal to have a weapon unregistered, or to invade the privacy of an individual.

 

each example given has not been specific enough to make the judgement call. often that's what it comes down to, making the judgement based on the best data you have availible at the moment, expecially in the face of crisis.

 

I not only believe it's moral to prevent crime, I believe it is Nessary to the continuation of our (human kind's) collective society.

 

The rights of the Individual are retained excepting when he crosses into violating the rights of another. Autonomy and Freedom are precious, however are forfiet in the face of the suppression of another's Autonomy and Freedom, this prinicible in my mind works all the way up.

[Panjandrum]

Youre missing the point. The question is wether tis _moral_ to act against someone who has _done_ nothing wrong. That is, is the knowledge that an immoral action is going to be taken sufficient justification to act in an immoral way?

 

Specifics should only be used to clarify this point, not as the basis of argument. Im unconcerned with specific examples, I think the question is answerable in purely abstract terms.

[IDMclean]

Within my set of morals, it is nessessary to act upon those who intend, with vivid clarity to cause harm to others.

 

If I do not have sufficent proofs, that is enough emperical evidence, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person intends wrong action, I would not act against them. In the case of a person who has pulled out a grenade, well he is not in the wrong until his intention has clearly gone from right to wrong, IE pulling the pin.

 

At which point, in this extremity, he has forfeited all rights and is subject to preventive measures. As non-lethal as possible mind you. He has not forfieted his right to redemption, that is an immutable, inalienable right of all living things.

 

Otherwise as I have previously indicated, it is judged based on a case to case situation.