[ischuldt]

Should a crime be considered a crime if the only way you can survive is to commit the crime?

Even murder isn't murder as long as it's in the name of self defense.

If a person's only means of survival is truely to steal food from someone else who has plenty can you really justify putting that person in jail for it? Does it not make more sense financially to just give them some food? If you put them in jail you'll have to feed them and put a roof over their heads anyway. Why not just do that from the outset and not bother considering them a criminal?

[chanel]

I think it's a loose legal term born of cultural effects ... Meh

---------- Post added 12-15-2010 at 03:11 PM ----------

Oh and great point about stealing food!

[MikeC]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Even murder isn't murder as long as it's in the name of self defense.

Wrong. Murder is the act of terminating another's life with malicious premeditated intents.

[ischuldt]

	Originally Posted by MikeC To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wrong. Murder is the act of terminating another's life with malicious premeditated intents.

Fine...Killing then. I appologize for my egregious error which obviously made my point in coherent.

[Arkeph]

Crime has a lot of understandable and wrongheaded connotations that stem from the overgeneralization that crime is always wrong. It's simply not legal and generally unethical. Whether the act is evil and/or needs punishment sometimes depends strongly on the circumstances, which is why mandatory minimum sentences are in such serious conflict with the role of judges.

IMO, there's a deep problem in any society which doesn't appreciate the ethical complexity of crime and demonizes all criminals indiscriminately. When bad laws get passed, good people can become criminals, but it's nonsensical to call them bad people because of their criminality.

To put it simply, fighting against applying the label of criminal is the wrong fight. Instead, the fight should be against the authoritarian idea that any violation of the law, regardless of circumstances or intent, is ethically wrong.

[Traverser]

I think crimes ought to be with respect to whether individual property rights are being violated. As I said to someone else not too recently "There are sins and there are crimes. Not all sins are crimes, yet all crimes are sins."

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	all crimes are sins.

Really? What sin did George Norris commit? Should our law just be the 10 commandments then? Or are you defining sin in the context of some other religion? Is it sinful to violate the laws of nations in which you don't even reside?

"The other hardened criminal whose story members of Congress will hear today is retiree George Norris. A longtime resident of Spring, Texas, Norris made the mistake of not knowing and keeping track of all of the details of federal and international law on endangered species -- mostly paperwork requirements -- before he decided to turn his orchid hobby into a small business. What was Norris's goal? To earn a little investment income while his wife neared retirement.

The Lacey Act is an example of the dangerous overbreadth of federal criminal law. Incredibly, Congress has made it a federal crime to violate any fish or wildlife law or regulation of any nation on earth.

Facing 10 years in federal prison, Norris pled guilty and served almost two. His wife, Kathy, describes the pain of losing their life savings to pay for attorneys and trying to explain to grandchildren why for so long Poppa George couldn't see them."

[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Should a crime be considered a crime if the only way you can survive is to commit the crime? Even murder isn't murder as long as it's in the name of self defense. If a person's only means of survival is truely to steal food from someone else who has plenty can you really justify putting that person in jail for it? Does it not make more sense financially to just give them some food? If you put them in jail you'll have to feed them and put a roof over their heads anyway. Why not just do that from the outset and not bother considering them a criminal?

A crime is whatever lawmakers and authorities say is a crime. You should be law abiding if you have a choice.

Most people in jail today, prostitutes, drug dealers, con artists, are in jail because they couldn't find a better way to make money. As the economy gets worse then even more people will go in jail.

[Thinker]

In the example of someone stealing food through necessity, I would hope the police and the victim of the crime would take a practical (and compassionate) view and decide between themselves not to take this matter any further.

The practical difficulty (within the current criminal system) is in gathering evidence. How do you prove quickly that the perpetrator is telling the truth that they don't have any options? Police have to make decisions like this every day and I would suggest in most cases they would base any decision on statistical likelihood that the perpetrator is telling the truth. For petty crimes, they typically don't have time to make anything other than a cursory interrogation of the perpetrator, victim and any witnesses. In a small town, where the police know most of the people, the decision is much easier than in a large city where the perpetrator will most likely be unknown to the police.

I understand that once the issue is reported as a crime, it is difficult to move it out of the judicial system. However, the judicial system should also have the ability to look at issues on compassionate grounds. Again we are faced with the issue of efficiency. How much effort are we (as a community) willing to put into gathering evidence to prove one way or the other that the perpetrator, victim and witnesses are telling the truth? The current judicial system is extremely expensive and doesn't necessarily have the resources to investigate petty crimes. Judges therefore have to rely on minimal evidence and pleas by the perpetrator and victim to make a judgement.

I am not saying that a crime hasn't been committed. I am saying that societies should deal with these issues in a compassionate manner.

Unfortunately, scarcity of resources can often dictate the outcome.

In my view, if the perpetrator is armed and threatening.....a crime has been committed.

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Should a crime be considered a crime if the only way you can survive is to commit the crime? Even murder isn't murder as long as it's in the name of self defense. If a person's only means of survival is truely to steal food from someone else who has plenty can you really justify putting that person in jail for it? Does it not make more sense financially to just give them some food? If you put them in jail you'll have to feed them and put a roof over their heads anyway. Why not just do that from the outset and not bother considering them a criminal?

An act is a crime if it breaks the law. That's pretty much it.

Murder is a crime. Killing in self defense is not murder and therefore not a crime (at least not that particular crime). There are nuances here, of course.

If a person steals food they have commited a crime. That doesn't necessarily mean jail time. There are many possible punishments for stealing depending on the nature of the crime and the jurisdiction. It does make sense to have some option available for hungry people. However, once convicted of theft that doesn't matter. We can't go back and not consider them criminals because they are criminals. The only exception I can think of is if the law is changed such that their action is no longer considered a crime, then any penalty imposed based on that crime is eliminated.

EDIT ~ I'm not saying that circumstances are completely irrelevant when handing out sentences. The law recognizes this to some extent and allows some leawey on sentences based on the circumstances of the crime.

[MikeC]

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fine...Killing then. I appologize for my egregious error which obviously made my point in coherent.

I would just like to point out that killing animals for fun by pulling their limbs apart is different from killing animals humanely for food.

	Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If a person's only means of survival is truely to steal food from someone else who has plenty can you really justify putting that person in jail for it? Does it not make more sense financially to just give them some food? If you put them in jail you'll have to feed them and put a roof over their heads anyway. Why not just do that from the outset and not bother considering them a criminal?

Maybe he should appeal by graceful asking rather than steal?

There's always the welfare system, but it is a preemptive move to not hand them the fish everytime they need it. You give one fish today, and you'll oblige to give another tomorrow. This is not the making of a society. Everyone is provided a base level of education, and if they can't make anything out of it, then it is not society's fault for him not being able to better himself.

If the said person does not see prison as a deterrent to crimes as he breaks the law, then society is better off if he is deprived of his freedom (where he thinks it's okay to make others worse off).

[Urshulgi]

There are over 50,000 different local, state, and federal statutes on the books, so the odds are pretty high that you've unknowingly violated several hundred, if not thousands, of them over the course of your adult life.

This is what happens when you let bitchy housewives and retired people petition the government.

[SarcasticVlad]

Originally Posted by ischuldt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Should a crime be considered a crime if the only way you can survive is to commit the crime? Even murder isn't murder as long as it's in the name of self defense. If a person's only means of survival is truely to steal food from someone else who has plenty can you really justify putting that person in jail for it? Does it not make more sense financially to just give them some food? If you put them in jail you'll have to feed them and put a roof over their heads anyway. Why not just do that from the outset and not bother considering them a criminal?

You have to understand that laws aren't perfect. They can never be perfect. Stealing is a crime no matter what you steal. Sure I wouldn't call someone who steals food to survive a criminal, but the act itself is a criminal act of stealing and it is defined in laws of every country.
Killing in self defense isn't a murder. Murder is strictly defined in criminal law as unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. In self defense there is no "unlawful" and there is no "malice aforethought". Therefore it is not a crime. It's a bit difficult for me to explain. I'm only a law student and English is not my native language.