Is a crime that is done in good intentions actually a crime?
I mean If someone mean's good by commiting a crime, should they still be punished for it?
Printable View
Is a crime that is done in good intentions actually a crime?
I mean If someone mean's good by commiting a crime, should they still be punished for it?
Depends on the situation, but I say if they didn't really do much wrong and were really working for a good cause, then they should be left off. Stealing bread to feed your starving family isn't bad and shouldn't be punished because your just trying to survive.
But as for the way the law views it? If you broke the law regardless your going to jail.
Stealing bread is wrong, even if it's to feed your family. I mean, where the hell is the baker supposed to steal bread from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamut2000X
Besides, nobody really does that. It's far too easy to survive. Addictions cause crimes of necessity, not good intentions.
IF, and this is a big IF... hold on...
IF somebody were really committing a crime for the sake of something truly "good," then it would have to be an act of civil disobedience, whatall Thoreau was talking about, and the government itself would have to, in its corruptness, outlaw things that ought not be crimes.
But theft for necessity in a society where people don't "need" to steal is crime. Murder for vengeance is still murder. Personal justifications only go as far and as long as you're willing to pay for your crimes. IMO.
No.
a crime is a crime otherwise i wouldn't be called a CRIME!!!
if you have a family and cant afford bread then your a smurfing failure and your family should kill you and turn your corpse into jerky, that'll feed them til spring.
good intentions dont matter in the crime doing. they only matter in the sentencing
so in the end yes even if its for good you should still be punished... just maybe not as much
Crime's go against written and practiced LAW.
So -no- act of "good-intention" crime will go unpunished because of set laws in place.
We don't live in the "eye-for-an-eye" age.
True, but keep in mind that old Lucifer here has been around quite some time. Maybe senility is catching up to the poor devil; I mean, I don't know about you, but if I lived for thousands of years, centuries may start to blur together and I'd forget minor details like that, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Avarice-ness
In all seriousness, I really don't want to think about this too much. It's far too close to what I've been discussing in philosophy.
The problem here, in my opinion, is the highly subjective nature of "meaning well" and having "good intentions."
Some people might think that vigilantism is good, especially if the perpetrators mean well by dealing 'street justice' to criminals who prey on the innocent. The same could be said of someone who beats a drunk man unconscious to prevent him driving.
There could also theoretically be good intentions behind smuggling, vandalism, theft, and fraud.
However, if everyone simply did what they believed to be good, then the result would eventually be an anarchic, dangerous world. Not everyone has the same beliefs as to what intentions are 'good' enough to mitigate the outcome. While the law will always conflict with what a lot of people might think in relation to individual incidents, it tries to set a universal standard that is reasonably fair to everyone affected.
With regard to most crimes, the intentions of the perpetrator are indeed relevant to whether or not they actually committed a crime - but the 'intention' the courts look at is whether the person intended to carry out the act in question, not what they intended to achieve by doing it. Their underlying motivation might, however, affect their sentence, one way or the other.
Well a crime is breaking the law so something done in good intentions that's against the law is a crime, yeah.
Maybe I should rephrase the question is a crime done in good intentions still MORALLY WRONG?
Well people have different opinions on what is and isnt 'good intentions'.
Why dont you give an example
When you put it that way... no, it's not always morally wrong to commit a crime with good intentions. For example, if X encounters a rapist who is attacking a victim, then X might decide to kick the rapist's head in. This serves a dual purpose: (1) it frees the criminal's victim from attack, and (2) makes the attacker suffer for what he is doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Devil
Depending on the brutality involved in the head-kicking, X might not be able to plead self-defence/defence of another. This would mean he's guilty of the crime of assault. However, many people would argue that what he did was morally right, given the circumstances.
But morality can be subjective too. Some people can see moral value in 'Robin Hood'-style theft from the wealthy to benefit the needy, whereas many others would consider that just another crime against undeserving victims.
Yeah, it depends on the situations.
Look at Big D's example - a guy kicking the rapist, I'm pretty sure that about 95% of people will agree that what the guy did was the right thing to do. How else to stop the rapist?
All The Devil cares about is whether he gets their souls or not :D
I say the above situation is acceptable, but the law is the law, even if some of it makes no sense
Yeah pretty much...although the law is often overly complicated and bloated with minute exceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
Exceptions are normally very fun ways to screw with people's minds. But in an effort to understand law i have to take Legal Studies at school at it's going to be the death of me :(Quote:
Originally Posted by The DevilYeah pretty much...although the law is often overly complicated and bloated with minute exceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiro
good and bad are points of view...i think its good to do what you feel you should do...and it may be good for you...but in general...to all other humans...its bad :D
depends on the situation to me, everyone has different opinions on what good exceptions are anyway:rolleyes2