HydrogenBond Posted December 30, 2005 Report Share Posted December 30, 2005 There are two kinds of crime; one is against moral law the other against social law. These two do not always mean the same thing. For example, moral law says it is wrong to steal, yet social law says if one does it legally or has good legal representation it may not be a crime. Or if a person steals $100 from a cornterstore and gets caught he may spend more time in jail than someone who steals $100K. Both are moral crimes but one social crime is considered less of a violation than the other. Other examples of induced social crime are things like prohibitions. If we decided to make shoes illegal, we could immediately create a whole new crop of criminals where there were none yesterday. This crime does not violate moral law but it would violate the new social law. Ironically, moral law makes fewer criminals than social law. Social law can allow the self rigtheous to get away with breaking moral law. In one decided to humiliate and imprison the criminal shoe wearer, it might be considered acceptable due to the serious nature of their crime against the social law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 sorry for your bad mood,but thanks for the apology. i don't seem to have a problem identifying crime. it's really quite simple and has been explained in many different ways. if you don't like the 10 Commandments, how about the golden rule? most crime consists of acts directed against other people to harm them, or take their property. seems pretty simple to me. as for your political statement, to me a lie is a falsehood uttered by someone who is aware that his statement is false, such as Clinton swearing he did not have sex with ML. on the other hand if someone repeats statements given to him by trusted individuals,which turn out to be false, i do not call that a lie. i can see why liberals have a problem differentiating the two events. if you think it would have been better for the world and the US for Saddam to remain in power, that subject should be outside the purview of this post. we are at war and people get killed in a war. if people observed the golden rule, we would have no need for war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 HydrogenBond:There are two kinds of crime; one is against moral law the other against social law. But moral law has a basis in something, doesn't it? Social law has a basis in voting or agreement. So one is dictated and one agreed upon. But are either of them valid? How do we know they are correct and how do we prove it? How do we justify law A and law B? They identify what constitutes a crime so shouldn't we have a way to know for sure?LindaGarette said whatever works. Well, that to me seems a little uh, weak?, since lives and livelihoods are at stake. Certainly, if they don't work, they should be removed. But that takes time, lots of time. Are there principles behind laws? If so, what are the principles behind laws against the manufacture and distribution of drugs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 if you are talking about legal, medicinal drugs, the FDA regulates manufacture and distribution in the name of public safety.if you're talking about illegal drugs, these are usually potentially dangerous,or habit forming, or mood altering , or toxic. this is why laws exist against usage and manufacturing, but you already knew this, didn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Questor: if you are talking about legal, medicinal drugs, the FDA regulates manufacture and distribution in the name of public safety.Right, I know that was the initial intent. But when mistakes happen, the oversight bodies end up protecting the companies that screw it up. And problems get covered up, especially if they're just 'little problems'. Not a good solution, in my view. Not to mention it's too easy to become corrupted and if you honestly think that don't happen, well, then you need to rethink it.if you're talking about illegal drugs, these are usually potentially dangerous,or habit forming, or mood altering , or toxic. this is why laws exist against usage and manufacturing, but you already knew this, didn't you?Well sure I know what the stated intent is/was/continues to be. But this stuff continues to be available so either the people overseeing its non-availability have given up or they have been bought. Personally, I think most have given up but for sure some have been bought. but we can ignore that, right, and when we die and go to heaven God will look at us and say, "Well, you meant well."When my father got home from WWII his uncle bought a liquor store in my father's name because at that time only vets could get a license. He also owned a bar in Mpls. A bar that stayed open around the clock even though it was supposed to close at 1 or 2 am, can't remember which. Lots of things that were done in that bar were 'illegal' but the right envelope handed to the man in blue once a week made all the eyes look in other directions. And I don't blame either the man in blue or the man handing him an envelope filled with dough. I blame the fools that set the limits. Although it did create a little revenue flow didn't it, so how dumb were they really?There is the way things actually work and then there is the way we think they work. How much of what you think is based on the truth and how much is based upon what you have been told is true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questor Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 rules and laws are nearly always made for the public good. some people do not have the integrity to follow them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Questor:rules and laws are nearly always made for the public good. some people do not have the integrity to follow them.Well, nearly isn't real good is it? I mean how nearly is nearly. 51 % ? 99 % ?And how does (sorry, I don't mean to pick you) integrity correlate to following the rules?Nazi Germany had all kinds of rules made for the public good. Ah, but this is America and we're not that way. So what percentage of change would it take to move our set of rules to the set of rules that governed Germany in the late 30s and early 40s? I suspect it isn't as big as you might think. And, what would be the nature of the changes?Sometimes it takes integrity to violate the rules such as the 'underground railroad' during civil war days. Integrity is remaining true to what you believe. And sometimes that requires you to break the rules. When rule breaking becomes a natural act, it is time to revisit the rules. Prohibition created legions of criminals and rulebreakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 rules and laws are nearly always made for the public good. some people do not have the integrity to follow them.Laws exist to protect property. They are only as effective as the police force. Few people are completely honest. That's why we make such a big deal whenever a lost wallet is returned with all the contents in tact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.