The debate "Criminals are wicked and deserve punishment" was started by
November 12, 2016, 3:30 am.
40 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Jesmin posted 2 arguments, neveralone posted 12 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 19 arguments to the disagreers part.
dalton7532, neveralone, nebula, thereal, shomar09, Jesmin, jack_tim_45, mike1253890, arpita00, geniegenius101, Yanksxx21, monikofos, Ematio and 27 visitors agree.
Sosocratese, TheExistentialist, hmn, Apollo and 10 visitors disagree.
calling it. it's over
Yeah plz let's finish it up
so is this over?
ok I'm not talking about the low guys who use the drug. most (not all) want off. I mean focus in the supply and cut it off while simultaneously helping the addicted
the use of synthetic drugs are also way down (bath salts, etc...) as compared to the US or other European countries.
Now, let's look at crime:
Crime is a bit tricky since decriminalizing drugs means a huge drop in drug offenders and thus the overall statistics will show a drop in crime overall.
However, if we look at specific crimes we can see that drug related crimes in Portugal have been on the decline since 2001. Homicide rates have stayed about the same, however, their numbers were low pre-decriminalization (105 per year for the country and that has remained about the same with some fluctuations of course). More complex theft (from businesses or homes), the kind usually associated with drug use has also declined in Portugal.
We know that sending a drug offender to a rehab program is about $20,000 cheaper per year than housing them in a federal prison.
The only real argument left here is the "when u were a kid if u broke stuff did it mom say it was okay to keep breaking things three times a week only?' analogy:
I think it's really easy to dismiss this since jail is not a deterrent for drug users and it is not a deterrent for committing crimes in order to obtain drugs, we can easily see this by the recidivism rates of drug users, the fact that drug use stats have remained the same even with the crack down on drugs (minimum sentencing laws, etc...).
The data is pretty clear; jailing minor drug offenders does more harm than good. Decriminalization of small amounts of drugs and treating it as a public health issue achieves better results for both the user and society, it is cheaper, reduces crime, and decreases use.
@neveralone. I assume you're responding to the drug legalization.
Here is a great summery by the Cato institute that touches on a lot of the issues.
Essentially, the argument is that the drug policies of today have simply failed.
Use hasn't declined, availability has gone up, black-market crimes have gone up, and prison populations have exploded.
Just to give you an idea, 50% of all federal inmates have a drug conviction as their most serious charge. Only 7% of federal inmates are in jail due to violent crimes.
So we're spending an exorbitant amount of money on housing, feeding, and treating drug offenders in the federal prison system. These offenders have a high recidivism rate due to the fact they are convicted felons and finding a job is next to impossible for many of them. This means they are often locked into a never ending cycle of jail, selling drugs, back to jail.
Now, what is the alternative and does it work?
Well, it just so happens that there is a great case study for legalization, it's Portugal. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs in small amounts. This includes cannabis, heroin, cocaine, etc.... The substances themselves remain illegal, however, small amounts are no longer a criminal offense. They deal with it as a social health issue. So if you are caught with a small amount of cocaine, you are sent to a treatment program and/or may have to pay a small fine. However, you are not convicted of a crime (similar to traffic court here in the states).
When we look at the impacts of this on their population, we see that use among young adults is down since 2001, use in adults in general is down slightly, new HIV cases among users are WAY down according to the Transform Drug Policy Foundation.
More impressive is the fact that the death rates of users are also way down. Portugal now has a overdose rate of 3 per 1-million. In the US we have an overdose rate of 13.8 per 100-thousand (wrote those numbers out to show you the absurd discrepancy). Now, those numbers are a bit skewed since the US numbers include pharmaceutical overdoses. However, the data shows, that about 25% of those deaths were due to illegal drug use. So that still leaves us with a rate of 3.45 deaths per 100-thousand. So Portugal has a rate 10 times lower than that of the US.
to be continued:
I take the last sentence as a compliment.... Hahaha
no problem. figured I'd get that last jab in though. Good debating with you.
it was to the existionalihst when he said something to me.does it not have the replied to button?
who and what are those points in response to?
that's because of two things 1)people started doing it underground and we stopped caring and 2) all we gave was the stick and no honey. u r suggesting all honey and no stick. we need both.
what about crime. also is this a study? if so does it say it's directly from legalizing it? also by legalizing it u r saying it's OK when it's not and just allowing them to do something stupid. for example when u were a kid if u broke stuff did it mom say it was okay to keep breaking things three times a week only? also would u even follow said rule?
that specific one o agree. but some kind of punishment would be nice.
and as I said before. sometimes there are better solutions.
existentialist mentioned studies, but I will offer a logical and moral argument.
how much should the government regulate "for an individual's protection against himself"? shall we mandate everyone wear a helmet all the time because brain injuries are just so devestating? how about imprisonment for people who spend all day on the couch watching TV while killing themselves with chronic diseases? at what point does personal choice and freedom come in? I don't want to live in a nanny state!
what someone does in the privacy of their own home, and not affecting other people is their own business. and of course if someone steals to support their habit... you arrest them for stealing. but if someone works in order to support their habit, who are you to tell them how they can spend their money?
that being sad, there are different drugs, I can make the case for legalizing heroin, but I'm not sure I would support it or not. however many drugs should be legal.
what exactly is the difference between taking a drug and going skydiving? both are a short thrill with minimal benefits and many hazards.... we should make skydiving illegal too!!!
All right Mr intelligent. I can't argue right now... First I have to type these lengthy paragraphs, second I will have to search up a lot to answer you and third I agree that all criminals are not wicked but in India most of them are....
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). Police in different states and Union Territories arrested 1,491 people under Section 377, including 207 minors and 16 women, in 2015.
All right.. Let's just finish it up. You win.. I am too tired to argue right now...
No gay is convicted under this act since it is disputed..
this is a summary by the Cato institute;
You can also look at a case study. Portugal Decriminalized all drugs. here are the results:
study on cannabis legalization and use
study of legalization from sociological and economic view:
study on criminology and drugs:
"I would like to ask what will be a difference between civil dispute and criminal one"
that's a complex topic and there are doctorate dissertations on the topic, so it's going to be a pain to go through this. However, in general I'd say that civil disputes are disputes between parties in which neither is claiming a "right" had been violated. In general, criminal cases are ones where offenses were committed against the government or the rights of another party were violated. that's about as much as I can dumb it down. It's a hugely complex topic.
Your case rests on the assumptions that laws are just and in the best interest of the public. However, we've already established that in some countries that is not the case. We've also established that not all laws in India, Europe, Canada, or the US, are necessarily there to ensure the safety of the public.
Since laws change from country to country, and from one time to another, and you are unwilling to make a universal claim about criminality and morality, your argument can only be: "Criminals at this moment in time, are wicked if they violate Indian law and deserve to be punished"
You are confined by temporal relativism since laws are subject to change and thus what is illegal and therefore wicked changes with time. So that which is wicked today, may not be wicked tomorrow (if 377 for example is abolished tomorrow, then the people who were gay yesterday and convicted are wicked, and the people who are gay tomorrow are not wicked). This makes "right" and "wrong" arbitrary concepts since they cannot be relied upon to judge the actions of individuals in other cultures, individuals in different times, or individuals from the same culture living in a different legal system. So a gay Indian who is convicted of section 377 is wicked in India, however, that same person is not wicked in the US, the EU, Canada, etc...
Also I would like to know which study shows that decriminalising drug use will benefit society and it will help society
I would like to ask what will be a difference between civil dispute and criminal one... N that law is not only towards Muslims if a Muslim says anything to Hindus that is an offence too and that 377 one's case is going on in the court
Let me quickly sum up a few things and then I'll show you that your position is either contradictory, culturally relativistic, or places too much trust in the government.
1) you have stated (in regards to laws like no-woman drivers, no freedom of speech, etc..) that: ."...said in a democratic country such laws don't exist."
2) you stated that: "I must tell you that laws are made for our safety only" and "Laws are made so that you remain safe and sound"
3) You also stated "Yes" to the question "Is a criminal not anyone who violated a law?"
4) you stated: "Coz every law if we will see is made after a lot of studies'
By taking just number 1, the best case you can make is that in a criminal system like India, criminals are wicked and deserve punishment. However, you can't make a global statement since we all know there are laws in other countries that are unjust.
By taking number 2 and looking at laws like 377, 295A, and 497 we can clearly see that some laws are not there for you to remain safe and sound. Some laws are either remittance of colonial times, or are laws based on religious grounds.
in number 3 we see that even if you violated a law which has nothing to do with preseving the public good, you are a criminal.
----So according to that logic, someone who is engaging in homosexual acts in India is wicked, however, they're not wicked in the US or Europe, since it's not against the law there. Someone who offends Muslims is wicked in India, but not in the US, Canada, or Europe. Someone who cheats is wicked in India, but not the US, EU, or Canada.
if we look at number 4, we can clearly see that as false. Anti-drug laws are not based on research, if they were, then users would not be criminalized. The scientific research clearly shows that decriminalizing personal drug use benefits society. Section 377 is another law that is not based on studies. Otherwise you wouldn't have a law banning homosexual acts. 295A is also not based on studies. 497 criminalizes a civil dispute. I'm sure if I dug into the Indian penal code more, i could come up with plenty more examples.
I'll sum up in my next post due to space.
What I was saying was we are not criminals until approved by the court and when it decides the case it just does not see the law.... It sees other factors too like the circumstance, intention, cause, result, motive etc and then gives jurisdiction. Many a times it also amends the laws seeing the problems faced by the public. So when we are established criminals we are wicked.. And deserve punishment
my apologies, i must have had a dyslexic moment there.
but yes, 377 provides a basis for criminalizing homosexuality. so I ask again, what good does that law do for society? By what standard is one wicked for disobeying it?
I want to go through this statement a bit:
"But I would say that when some violations are not wrong then they are not punished.. In the courts when cases are fought only laws are not considered... They see the morality and betterment of society."
"when some violations are not wrong then they are not punished"
---doesn't this contradict the original claim that all criminals are wicked and need to be punished? Aren't you already conceding to exceptions? If there are exceptions to the statement that criminals are wicked and deserve to be punished, then you can't substantiate the claim as a whole.
'In the courts when cases are fought only laws are not considered... They see the morality and betterment of society"
---If you want to make this claim, aren't you then essentially saying that the courts are the moral authority? isn't criminality and thus morality then a culturally relativistic phenomena?
Then it's 377 not 337, hahaha
Plz search on www.indiankanoon.org
N I am really tired of this debating on the topic. Hahaha. But I would say that when some violations are not wrong then they are not punished.. In the courts when cases are fought only laws are not considered... They see the morality and betterment of society.
here is the actual text for Chapter XVI, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code
I quoted you section 337. it clearly states: "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.". That is a direct quote from the IPC. You may want to read your own penal code again. The indian supreme court also affirmed the interpretation of it being used as an anti-gay law multiple times.
What definition of wicked are you operating under? "Wicked" is generally tied to an opposition to moral behavior. You can clearly see this by definition 1 and 1.1 here:
In order to claim that violating a law is wicked, you'd have to argue that all violations of any law is morally wrong. Are you willing to make that claim?
I think you are wrong about that section 337... Plz Google it.... N I just want to say that criminals are wicked no matter what the situation they are living in.... Anything evil or mischievous is a wicked act... N there are different laws for which explanation of wickedness will vary.... You are just considering of one type that is malicious intent which is wrong... Disobeying civil laws or safety laws is also wickedness for me. Coz every law if we will see is made after a lot of studies.
I expected you to be mature by your arguments... Take it as a compliment...
I never made the argument that speeding laws aren't worthwhile laws. What I was arguing that most of the speeding violations don't result in harm and are not done out of malice. I argue this because it means that violators aren't "wicked" even though they're technically criminals without malice.
You're wrong about 337. It states: "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section.
Section 295A. This is where we will disagree staunchly. I believe the right to speech is absolute and must therefore also include the right to offend. Having one's sensibilities offended does not make you a victim of another's actions, it makes you weak in your convictions. We may fundamentally disagree on this point and since it's really not relevant to the conversation as a whole, I'll leave it at that.
I believe marital affairs are a civil issue and not one of criminal nature. I don't mind civil courts being given guidelines as to judgments for adultery, but to criminalize the act doesn't do any good for society as a whole. Jailing someone for adultery places an undue burden on society which has no vested interest in the infidelity of a party. There is no social positive that comes from infidelity laws. Any claim for a social benefit is immediately eroded by the fact that the law is written with sexual bias and denies women agency.
To get back to the original argument though; I think I've established fairly strongly that not all criminals are wicked, that wickedness has to do with intent and that a criminal without malicious intent is not wicked, but rather a victim of circumstance, complacency, ignorance, or bad legislation.
I would like to inform you that laws are made keeping the worst case scenarios not the best case ones... N I must tell you approx 1200 Road accidents take place every day in India due to over- speeding... N Road accidents are the 4th biggest cause of deaths all over the world.. Out of which 60% are caused due to over speeding.. Is this the worst situation I am considering or the most common situation
N actually I don't know much about the world's laws. I know only about my country's laws... So I m sorry I can't say anything about that...
N about that drug addict one there are innumerable rehabilitation centres, I expect in America too.. We can go there if we know that we are drug addicts.. N there is nothing called small drug addiction... When we get addicted it is very difficult to avoid that thing... So we take it more and more causing severe illnesses. If people won't fear the punishment, they will never be willing to give up drugs..
Section 337 States that any act causing hurt or personal safety of others is punishable...What's wrong in that..
And section 295a States that it is an offence to give any statement relating to other person's religious beliefs. If you have the right to speech it does not mean you are free to say anything to anyone... You can promote and preach your religion but not hurt other persons sentiments. You must know that you can exercise your rights until they don't take away other person's rights..
N section 497 States that you cannot establish sexual relationship with other person's wife... Here again you are crossing the limits.. What if someone establishes relation with your wife.. If this act is not there under which act are you going to present the case in court??
You will not get a police escort in the US usually. Most of the time, they'll call an ambulance for you, or will drive you themselves. Also, the example mostly served to show that violations of certain laws are sometimes done out of necessity rather than ill intent. meaning that one can be a criminal with good intent rather than malice.
There is actually a bipartisan push for legalization. We all know the "war on drugs" was a huge failure, both socially and fiscally. Prohibition on drugs resulted in the same problems that we associated with the prohibition of alcohol. Hence the bipartisan push for decriminalization.
I live in a state that legalized pot a few years ago (colorado) and i have to say, there really has been nothing but positives for our state. We have more revenue for schools (especially on our western slope and high mountain communities), we have revenue for research, we have money for educational and drug prevention programs, we have money for drug treatment programs. it's extremely tightly regulated and produces a good amount of jobs making our economy more robust (diversification always means robustness).
"idk on rest but last one doesn't sound 100 percent bad'
if you look up the law, you'll see that a woman is denied agency under this law. I also believe that adultery is a civil issue not a criminal issue. So penalizing the act of adultery would seem to be an overreach of the penal system. I don't wanna pay for adulterers to be housed in our jails....that seems like one of those laws that does nothing for society as a whole
No, I'm a cardiac tech.
No a lawyer kind of!!
I would say doing drugs is harming urself. also that a crime is a crime wether someone directly gets hurt or not.
u can call it in here in America and get a police escort and be okay.
true on first part.drugs hurt u that's proven. on a side note democrats are legalizing it not trying to fix it.a t least the right is trying i do something to stop it.
idk on rest but last one doesn't sound 100 percent bad
A professional at what? Debating? no.
I'm simply trying to illustrate that not all crimes have victims. There are such things as victim-less crimes. I keep making the point of non-violent crimes since you keep trying to turn examples I'm providing you into worst case scenarios when those are the exception and not the norm. Speeding usually doesn't result in accidents. In fact, it rarely does. it seems you're trying to wiggle out of your own position by inserting a worst case scenarios into the examples provided.
I'd like to add that simply because it isn't illegal to speed in India for emergencies, doesn't mean that the rest of the world operates that way. In the US, Canada, and most of Europe, speeding is a crime regardless of circumstance. You may receive an easement, but technically, it is still illegal. You can't just negate the examples I'm giving you based on cultural relevance since the claim above is a universal one. That means, you can't rely on India's legal system to support your claim.
As for laws being made to keep you safe:
That may be the case for a lot of laws, however, there are laws which don't hold the best interest of the public at heart. Possession laws for small amounts of illicit substances serve no good for the addict of the community. Studies show that punishing users for small quantities of drugs place an undue financial burden on the community (housing, feeding, and clothing criminals). They also show that convicted drug users have a high recidivism rate. Studies show that treatment is better than incarceration for the addict and society. So, anti-drug laws which punish users are laws which actually fail to protect the individual and the public.
As for laws being there to keep you safe and sound; not all laws achieve that goal. I'll give you some laws from India that don't fit the description you just gave. Many of these laws don't exist in any other democracy but India precisely because they don't keep you safe nor do they serve the public interest at large.
Section 337. How does it serve to keep you safe and sound?
Section 295A of the Indian penal code is also used to punish people of blasphemy. Are violators of that law not entitled to free speech more than others are entitled to not be offended?
Section 497 criminalizes some forms of adultery.
agreed as long as the law is good
I just want to ask if you don't mind are you a professional.. ( the existentialist)
Who told you that a crime means only violence??
I must tell you that laws are made for our safety only.... If you are taking your pregnant woman to hospital by over speeding and if you crash another car who has to pay for that... You will loose both your wife and child and harm the other person too.
And one more thing I would like to add to you information it is not a crime to over speed in emergency cases like this..
And that J-walking thing... I must tell you that signs related to J walking are only in high speed areas.. And there buses don't stop. And if someone thinks they are going to catch a speeding bus they are a fool..
Plz try to be a bit practical.... Laws are made so that you remain safe and sound.. If you cannot follow them you are obviously criminals. And that is why punishment is also necessary so that we don't repeat them.. Or someone else does not dare to do it.
I don't think u were I was just putting my opinion out there.
according to @Radhikadhawan, yes it does.
i asked him: "Is someone who resorts to crime out of necessity wicked?"
his answer was: "2 yes"
so according to him/her, anyone who violates a law out of necessity is wicked. This, according to @ Radhikadhawan own words, makes someone who speeds to the hospital to get their pregnant wife there wicked. A crime was committed out of necessity, and therefore, according to @ Radhikadhawan, the person speeding is wicked. There is no other way to interpret his/her position.
I'm not claiming that's your position @neveralone.
in the last two wicked might not be the word for it
Your answers to 1 and 3 are inconsistent.
If a crime is a violation of a law, then all violations of a law are crimes.
If a law exists which makes a nonviolent act a crime (drug possession, speeding, etc..), then violating that law makes one a criminal.
This means that non-violent offenders are criminals by definition.
Your answer to 2 and 1 means you must accept the following:
someone who steals out of necessity is therefore wicked
Someone who uses drugs due to addiction is therefore wicked
someone who speeds to get their pregnant wife to the hospital is therefore wicked.
someone who j-walks in order to catch the bus on time is wicked
3depends on the law
How have I changed the definition of wicked? it seems your definition is inline with the one I proposed.
I just have a few questions for you and we can move on.
Is a criminal not anyone who violated a law?
Is someone who resorts to crime out of necessity wicked?
Are individuals who have not committed violence not also criminals if they violate a law?
I am not moving the goal post or anything. I am just considering another example. I m talking about a free country like India. And I have told you I agree with you in all those instances that you gave of countries in which citizens are not valued or respected.. I am just taking another example.. That's all.
You are also changing the definition of wicked as it seems fit.. Wicked are all those who choose wrong paths even when the situations were bad.. Your excuses won't work when you have harmed other people when they haven't said you anything..
well let's look at speeding. many studies have found that it isn't the speed that increases accidents (although it obviously increases damage) but the fact that there are people driving at vastly different speeds that is the problem. if everyone was driving at the same speed, regardless of how fast, within the limits of their vehicles of course, fewer accidents will happen.
where I live the average highway speed limit is around 55 mph, yet rather than an upper limit it is more like a minimum where the only people driving at it are doing so out of fear of a ticket rather than because it is a safe and comfortable pace. a handful of maniacs drive at 100, but those are few. most drive at about 70 to 75 disregarding the speed limit which was set half a century ago before our vastly superior cars, widened roads, and improved signage, yet no politician would bother with legislating such a politically suicidal cause. it's arbitrary.
you could of course step up enforcement and get people to follow the rule under threat... or you can change the rules to a sensible speed, the one at which 80% of the people drive, safely on a daily basis. treat the reason behind the law breaking rather than just labeling innocent people as criminals and penalizing them.
another example is illegal immigration. sure you could step up enforcement and deportations, costing us money and hurting our economy... or you can loosen immigration limits and costs (not screenings), and eliminate the need to immigrate illegally by making legal paths easy. solve the core problem rather than criminalizing people. and then just tax them higher since they are more than willing to sacrifice to live here. win win.
ticketing people who stop in intersections, or fix the lights so when this one turns red, the next one turns green and anyone in the intersection quickly moves on and clears it without penalty or harrassment, not building up resentment that will turn into road rage and spread like a virus throughout the city.
there are many examples of problems where we can criminalize and enforce, or accommodate and improve. like if your trying to herd cattle, you can whip and prod every cattle that steps out of line, or smoothly guide them without them even realizing they are being led. sorry to compare humans to cattle, but when it comes to law making and city planning, it is a valuable analogy.
The problem that I'm having with your argument is that you're moving the goal posts it seems. You're changing the definition of criminal from someone committing an illegal act to someone violating some moral code which would qualify them as wicked. Essentially you're forcing the definition of what a criminal is to fit your argument.
For example the drug addict remains a criminal. In the US, the majority of our prison population consists of non-violent drug offenders. Are you calling all these criminals wicked?
I would argue that most criminals are victims of their circumstances rather than simply wicked. Being wicked implies that one chose to do bad/illegal acts rather than being forced by circumstance to do bad things.
what situation is it not best? which crime r u talking about?
obvious crimes like murder should obviously be punished, but punishing the criminal is not always the best strategy and it does nothing to deal with the reason of the problem.
I m not twisting your argument or anything. I have told you earlier that I agree of what you are saying... When the basic freedom of citizens is taken away I feel it is the govt who is criminal in this case... But I was talking about when they are really offending other people's rights....
And the thing about over speeding, it is obviously a crime. Govt is not stupid so as to make laws, do you know how many accidents take place every year due to over speeding. Have you ever seen young boys speeding as if they are flying helicopters.... And so many fall down(this is what I have actually seen). It is obviously a crime you are injuring yourself as well as others too..
And that drugs thing, it is for their benefit only. Becoming a drug addict can harm your health severely. Whatever the reason is. Laws are made for our safety only. We expect govt to protect us but when they make laws we just oppose.
do u want to focus it more in non democratic or Democratic countries?
wicked probably not.in the wrong yes.
that is an accidental addiction which they chose to continue the addiction therefore breaking the law. but most choose to. for a small amount they won't get nearly as big of charge and might give them a good reason to stop it right then
Youre misreading, misunderstanding, or twisting my argument. In fact these people are criminals. The mere fact of violating a law makes you a criminal.
Again, there is nothing in the title that specifies whether criminals in Democratic countries are wicked, it simply states criminals.
There are also laws in Democratic societies like j-walking, speeding, ignoring stop signs that if violated makes one a criminal, however I wouldn't call someone wicked because they were speeding .
I'd argue that drug offenders are also not necessarily wicked. Someone with an addiction to pain killers due to over prescription who then turns to heroin (since it's cheaper), then gets busted for having a small amount of it isn't wicked, they're a victim. In the eyes of the law however, they're a crimina
In India too there are innumerable schemes to help the poor...
this example is also more of a society problem or economic depending on the roots. in America we have programs to help these people like the hungry boy and they take full advantage of it and then some more and still they steal. so at least here they are immoral
Was also a tea seller and poor*
Then according to you all those who are poor have a right to steal.. No matter how much loss they are causing to the person whose possessions are being stolen as if his years of hard work doesn't matter at all. And one more thing plz remember that our honourable pm was also a pm. If he had given way to criminal activities he would not have reached the position he is at right now. If we do hard work nothing is just impossible. You don't have to be thief for that.
you dont have copyrights. why did you copied my answer?
But I don't think they are wicked. If someone don't have enough money to buy necessary items, even food then there are only 2 ways in front of you. Either you steel food or starve and die. In that case if one chooses to steel then according to me he is not wicked. His present situation made him to do so.
I agree that these people are not criminals. But as I said in a democratic country such laws don't exist.. And the type of criminals are not like that... And these criminals are wicked and deserve punishment so that other people do not take the same path....
But I dont think all criminals are wicked. Do you? Like I mentioned about the hungry child thief.
A criminal is an individual who violates a law. No matter if the law is morally justified or not, if you violate it, you're a criminal. So driving as a woman in Saudi, makes that woman a criminal in that country. Speaking out against Kim Jong Un makes you a criminal in North Korea. Denying the Holocaust in France is illegal, so denying it makes you a criminal. Violating censorship laws in China by posting videos of the Tiananmen Square incident makes you a criminal. Edward Snowden, violated confidentiality laws and is thus a criminal.
Most countries have laws against J-walking. I doubt you'd call someone not waiting for a green light (without endangering others of course) wicked and deserving of punishment, yet they are criminals.
In the US it was illegal to have interracial marriages not too long ago by the way. Since this topic doesn't specify a country, all countries must be considered, not just yours.
Stealing is a crime... Whether a hungry child or a professional. Adapting wrong ways to get what you need cannot be the excuse... And one more thing in courts such children are never punished. Rather they are given money for survival.
a child who's poor and hungry steals from a grocer is a criminal in the sence of law. But he had to steal only because of hunger which forced him to do so. In that sense if you have a look, he/she aint a criminal.
What you are talking about is when the basic rights are not given... They are obviously not criminals neither wicked but that is a completely different scenario.. It is similar to when British ruled India. We did not have freedom to even speech. Those revolutionaries were obviously not criminals. But that was not a democratic rule.. Today in a democratic country like India we have all the rights.. And criminals are those who who cross their limits of freedom.. When they try to harm someone they are obviously not doing anything moral and hence criminals.
And one more thing interracial marriage was never illegal in India. And when those protesters pass through some private property it is obviously immoral... Breaking someone's house's windows, threatening them just because you want something can never be said morally upright. I think you must learn to differentiate between moral and immoral...
In some countries it is a crime for women to drive. Are they wicked because they're driving?
In some countries it is illegal to speak out against leadership. Is it wicked to voice an opinion?
In some countries it is illegal to blaspheme. Is it wicked to speak out against a God?
You can be charged with trespassing if you protest on private property. Does that mean protesters who trespass are wicked?
Not too long ago, it was illegal to marry someone from a different race. Were the people who violated that law wicked?
Can you please explain any criminal act that is not immoral. Like if according to you murdering someone is moral or maybe stealing.
not all crimes are immoral and thus, not all criminals deserve punishment. It makes no sense to call someone "wicked" if they didn't commit an immoral act.
Every type of criminals.. ( if there are any types) yes they are wicked and deserve punishment
what kinda criminals???