Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Intentions
I know I have covered this before, but I was just thinking..
If I were planning to rob a liquor store and was only detered of this because of a cop standing at the entrance, is that a criminal act? Is my intention to commit sufficient? Should I be punished with the same severity as some that actually robbed the liquor store? Should intent only come into play when a crime has been committed, or is it a stand-alone offense?
Travis' previous statement prompted this response:
I thought about this post when I saw the "To Catch a Predator" show on MSNBC about older guys who try to solicit sex from 13 year olds online, then go to the house where they think the 13 year old is, and run into the reporter. Turns out the 13 year old was more like 30 and works for a sexual predator prevention organization.
On the way out, after having been lectured by the reporter, they are arrested on the spot.
I just thought this fit right in with the whole "criminal intent" argument. Should they be arrested or not, according to your different philosophies?
My problem with the criminal intent approach is that is makes thoughts, feelings, and potential action criminal. I am not a fan of that slight of hand. Possible future action is made guilty today and actual crime is no longer needed to justify coercive action by a court of policing unit. Action is seperate from intent and I think that should be true in the court system
Although I have never seen the movie, Minority Report appears to take this 'intention' approach to its logical conclusion.
If I were planning to rob a liquor store and was only detered of this because of a cop standing at the entrance, is that a criminal act? Is my intention to commit sufficient? Should I be punished with the same severity as some that actually robbed the liquor store? Should intent only come into play when a crime has been committed, or is it a stand-alone offense?
Travis' previous statement prompted this response:
I thought about this post when I saw the "To Catch a Predator" show on MSNBC about older guys who try to solicit sex from 13 year olds online, then go to the house where they think the 13 year old is, and run into the reporter. Turns out the 13 year old was more like 30 and works for a sexual predator prevention organization.
On the way out, after having been lectured by the reporter, they are arrested on the spot.
I just thought this fit right in with the whole "criminal intent" argument. Should they be arrested or not, according to your different philosophies?
My problem with the criminal intent approach is that is makes thoughts, feelings, and potential action criminal. I am not a fan of that slight of hand. Possible future action is made guilty today and actual crime is no longer needed to justify coercive action by a court of policing unit. Action is seperate from intent and I think that should be true in the court system
Although I have never seen the movie, Minority Report appears to take this 'intention' approach to its logical conclusion.
Comments:
<< Home
I have seen the movie Minority Report, and it does a fair job of showing where we'd end up if intention were treated as crime itself. However, the movie has too many different issues it's tackling to really address that one thoroughly. On its face, I'd say it comes down against the intention-as-crime system.
I saw the same report on sexual predators and I wondered the same thing - is intention to commit a crime the same thing as the crime itself? I think it's safe to say that some people who consider committing crimes change their minds at some point and for many reasons.
I think law enforcement should be acting to prevent sexual predators from preying on children, but that doesn't necessarily extend to punishing intentions.
I saw the same report on sexual predators and I wondered the same thing - is intention to commit a crime the same thing as the crime itself? I think it's safe to say that some people who consider committing crimes change their minds at some point and for many reasons.
I think law enforcement should be acting to prevent sexual predators from preying on children, but that doesn't necessarily extend to punishing intentions.
We're back to the "ambient level of encroachment" distinction. Can I shoot you if I see you have a gun? What if you are pointing it at me?
These are probably property rights problems, the question is where do you end and I begin?
I don't think we should punish for criminal intent.
Another way to look at this is as a balance of liberty and security. I prefer greater liberty and less security, more risk.
Rather, I prefer to manage more of my risk myself, believing that I can do a better job of managing it than the state can.
Nathan
These are probably property rights problems, the question is where do you end and I begin?
I don't think we should punish for criminal intent.
Another way to look at this is as a balance of liberty and security. I prefer greater liberty and less security, more risk.
Rather, I prefer to manage more of my risk myself, believing that I can do a better job of managing it than the state can.
Nathan
We have to be willing to die for liberty. We must forsake security. Any compromise of liberty and we lose both.
What enables us to adopt such a mindset? What attitude must we have about our own mortality in order to live according to this creed? Is it a creed?
Nathan
What enables us to adopt such a mindset? What attitude must we have about our own mortality in order to live according to this creed? Is it a creed?
Nathan
I don't like that argument Travis. Is the crime holding or owning something that could potentially harm others or is the crime the actual harm done?
You could use that argument to outlaw anything that could harm others -- guns, knives, forks, aerosol cans, cars, matches and cigarettes.
Causing harm is still a crime, should owning something that is potentially harmful also be one?
You could use that argument to outlaw anything that could harm others -- guns, knives, forks, aerosol cans, cars, matches and cigarettes.
Causing harm is still a crime, should owning something that is potentially harmful also be one?
It's not ridiculous at all. Should people be allowed to carry nuclear bombs around? Sure.
Let's go back to property rights with this one, though. Should I be allowed to carry a gun around? Yes. Where? Wherever I want. What about inside your house? Well, no, of course not. Where can I shoot my gun? Wherever I want. What about at your house? Again, no.
Can I shoot a bullet over your house, if I own the land on both sides, and it does not touch your property? I guess that might be okay.
Should I be allowed to shoot a gun straight up into the air on my property? Only if I can prove that the bullet won't land on anyone else's property.
Should I be allowed to carry an atomic bomb, or even to detonate one? Sure, as long as the damage does not extend to anyone else's person or property. Since the fallout of radiation from such a blast would be difficult to isolate to my own property it would not be wise of me to carry one around. But this takes us back to the questions surrounding criminal intent. Should intent be punished or just actual crime?
The question was, Should I be allowed to carry one around? Where? On the roads. Who owns the roads? No one. Then no one can say. If its on the state's roads, then I guess the state gets to say.
All of these questions can fall under a category of "risk management." The best approach to solving them is to ask who should manage the risk? I say everyone ought to manage their own, and the state should not manage any.
Nathan
Post a Comment
Let's go back to property rights with this one, though. Should I be allowed to carry a gun around? Yes. Where? Wherever I want. What about inside your house? Well, no, of course not. Where can I shoot my gun? Wherever I want. What about at your house? Again, no.
Can I shoot a bullet over your house, if I own the land on both sides, and it does not touch your property? I guess that might be okay.
Should I be allowed to shoot a gun straight up into the air on my property? Only if I can prove that the bullet won't land on anyone else's property.
Should I be allowed to carry an atomic bomb, or even to detonate one? Sure, as long as the damage does not extend to anyone else's person or property. Since the fallout of radiation from such a blast would be difficult to isolate to my own property it would not be wise of me to carry one around. But this takes us back to the questions surrounding criminal intent. Should intent be punished or just actual crime?
The question was, Should I be allowed to carry one around? Where? On the roads. Who owns the roads? No one. Then no one can say. If its on the state's roads, then I guess the state gets to say.
All of these questions can fall under a category of "risk management." The best approach to solving them is to ask who should manage the risk? I say everyone ought to manage their own, and the state should not manage any.
Nathan
<< Home
