# Is crime justifiable?

Category: Let's talk

## Post 1 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Saturday, 06-Mar-2010 3:51:51

Okay, so maybe I think too much, or have too much time to think, but here goes.
It's been said that the only thing wrong about wrongdoing is getting caught. And this may be true because, while crime does punish itself, no one will punish a wrongdoer for their wrongdoing unless they are found out. And on top of that, if the wrongdoing remains undiscovered, then it may be justified because no one knows about it in order to consider it wrong.
To support this statement are a few quotes below:
1. A crime persevered in a thousand centuries ceases to be a crime, and becomes a virtue. This is the law of custom, and custom supersedes all other forms of law.
Mark Twain
Prohibition is an example of this. And a more recent example is petty larceny. Petty larceny has progressed beyond a trend. People steal from clothing stores, grocery stores, and hotels, and while these crimes may be noticed, people are able to commit with no repercussions.
2 Never do wrong when people are looking.
Mark Twain
This makes it easier to get away with crime, not that you can't while people are looking, but of course, one is least likely to get caught and disciplined/punished for it.
3. Crime expands according to our willingness to put up with it.
Barry J. Farber
I could not agree with this quote more. There have been many times when someone is being hurt, abused, or even killed, all in front of an audience, and there is no intervention by bystanders.
4. Successful crimes alone are justified.
John Dryden
5. There are crimes which become innocent and even glorious through their splendor, number and excess.
Francois De La Rochefoucauld
So what do you think? Is crime or wrongdoing justified just because the wrongdoing remains undiscovered? How do you interpret the quotes? What can you draw from them? Do you agree with them? Why?

## Post 2 by OceanDream (An Ocean of Thoughts) on Monday, 08-Mar-2010 9:10:36

I certainly do believe in civil disobedience. That is, disobeying the law because the person doing so believes that the law is unjust. However, I think the person should be prepared to pay any consequences if he/she is caught, and I also believe that no matter how unjust the law is, the crime should not harm another living creature, whether it would be a person or an animal.
As far as "A wrong is not a wrong unless it is caught", I have mixed feelings about that. There are so many things that could be considered wrong that are so small, why bother with them? Such as, going two miles over the speed limit, drinking one to two years underage, and that sort of thing. However, for the more serious crimes, and for the crimes that harm another living creature, it is wrong, whether it is caught or not. The person just many never be punished for it if it is not caught. I've said this before, but I strongly believe that the justice system is too soft on criminals these days.

## Post 3 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Monday, 08-Mar-2010 18:58:36

The justice system is not too soft on criminals. It is just more harsh with some criminals than others do to whatever reason they use to validate the treatment in their mind/s.
I do agree with you that criminals or wrongdoer should be prepared to take on whatever consequences they may have to suffer if found out.

## Post 4 by forereel (Just posting.) on Monday, 08-Mar-2010 21:14:18

Interesting topic. Crime is justified providing it is used to eat, or live, and does not directly hurt anyone. Stealing an apple to eat I suppose is to be over looked. Robbing a bank is doing more then surviving.

## Post 5 by wildebrew (We promised the world we'd tame it, what were we hoping for?) on Monday, 08-Mar-2010 21:21:00

A few random, unorganized throught:
I am not at all sure that crime always catches up with people. The idea of karma and that crime is self punishable seems a little bit wishful. I think the idea of justice is great but really just that, an idea. Of course sometimes it does, the murderer gets caught, the thief too, but we only hear stories about those who are "unlucky" enough to get caught, we nevr see tv episodes about the successful murder or theft, not unless they become legendary, so our idea of crime and punishment, I think, is a bit biased towards justice.
Of course crime is something defined by law and law itself is imperfect. Apparently it is not criminal to get people to borrow millions of dollars they can't afford, take bonuses and fees for the lending and when the whole thing comes crashing down, let the tax payers take the bill while you spend a nice vacation in the Bahamas, this while it is a crime to steal a coke at a grocery store.
The idea of the law must sometimes be questions, what is the purpose of it, is it to protect society, to rehab the individuals, to direct criminals onto a better path, why is something a crime and not something else?
Still I do not think we can selectively break the law just because we feel it is justifiable to do so. We all have different ideas of what is acceptable, what if driving 2 miles over the speed limit causes the car to hit the child instead of stoppin an inch away from it, life and death difference, what if a million people all think it is fine to steal a can of soda from a grocery store, that comes out to around a million to two million dollar in lost sales for the store, may be it'll go out of business as a result. Surely the ocst of the lost and stolen merchendise is absorbed the the rest of us who pay for groceries, in forms of higher prices since the store has to pay security guards or cameras.
I think the law should be questioned, punishments reinspected and we should seriously ask ourselves what the point of it is and if it makes sense.
Just as an example, if two drunken people decide to drive their cars home, one hits a person and kills him, the other doesn't. Aren't they really guilty of the same crime, it's only a matter of luck, or lack thereof, that labels one a killer and the other one not so.
So shuld we perhaps be much stricter with drunken drivers and make no difference between those who hurt someone and those who get caught before they do so?
I think it is a good idea, but I don't see how carrying intention based law out, may be in this field but I have a problem seeing it in others.
The jails are overflowing with people, for each prisoner, I believe, we, the tax payers, pay $30000 every year, if we can find a way to shorten the sentenses, to find a way to make prisoners ore productive or to re educate them quicker and release them, if they have seen the error of their ways, we'll have more money to help the poor and the sick.
This is all terribly complicated, that's a fact.

## Post 6 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Tuesday, 09-Mar-2010 9:23:11

As for poster four, I think it's funny that you bring up situations in which crime is justifiable because I wrote a paper on circumstances in which it is so. In my paper, lying and stealing were two of the several matters I justified.
I do think that lending people thousands or millions of dollars that they don't have anything near the potential to pay back is a crime. That's lost money that can go toward so many other things.
Another thing I think is wrong is when people raise money for a reasonable cause and actually put it or some or most of it toward their own amenities and desires. I just have to wonder how well the people that work with the Make-A-Wish Foundation are living.