Crime & Morality
Sparked by a large amount of alcohol the usual descent into political and general debate discussion that goes round in circles occured the other night before we all went along to Sarann’s house.
Without going into comment about *how* the discussion started it essentially revolved around debating if the same crime (stealing), but committed for different reasons should carry any different penalties or negative opinion from society as a whole, and indeed if certain crime committed for certain reasons was even wrong at all.
There were some pretty strong views floating around, and while one can never take these things too seriously, especially in the spirit of debate and the fact drink was a factor, some of the them were some of the strongest ones I have heard to date. To set the scene it essentially ended up that Matt and Kat took one side with Chris and myself taking the other.
Matt’s view was essentially that if it was helping the little people or was selfless, then it didn’t matter if it was against the law becuse it wasn’t as bad as if someone had committed the crime for purely selfish reasons. While one can see his point, there is a flaw in the argument. In order to have a society of laws that works, each law must be upheld as much as any other. Society does indeed grade the severity of breaking laws by the sentance that each one carries, but to suggest that a motive should have a serious bearing on the sentence that a crime carries when the actual law that has been broken is the same would be to seriously devalue the law as a whole. Chris went on to say that there is always a loser in any incident of law-breaking and it is for this reason that every law should be upheld in the same way.
No one can deny the moral factors though, and to give Matt and Kat credit, they seemed to have the moral end of things right. From a purely moral standpoint then yes, it is better to steal for someone else (giving to charity etc.) than for your own selfish ends. I think where the wires got crossed was that when looking at it from a legal standpoint. From a legal angle, you must treat the crimes the same. The bottom line is that as an individual you have stolen from someone else. Regardless of your reasoning, the crime is the same. A judge may look at the motive and pass an appropriate sentance, with the selfish one carrying a slightly harsher penalty, but as to if you should have the same criminal record and if both instances of the crime are “wrong”, then hell yeah. I could kill someone because they were about to shoot my friend, but would I still be a murderer? Yes, I would. Would I get the same sentance as if I had killed him in cold blood, no. And that is the only distinction we can make.
I feel sure that after this blog the debate will be far from over and not only do I expect comments from Matt and the others involved but also from members of the public – bring it on I say – I love a good debate 🙂
Need help using my Calendar plugin on your site?
Are you in my address book yet?
I've canned 3,564,020 spam blog comments so far and rising.
I have a zero tolerance on spam!
It compiles! Ship it!! 
Chris Worfolk Said,
May 27, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
I’m going to try and stop myself from just continuing the debate here but it’s not going to be easy :D. But I think it’s very important to understand there is rarely such a thing as a victimless crime. Even if that victim is quite far removed from the actual incident.
Gareth Said,
May 28, 2006 @ 1:30 am
Lol. 🙂
The Voice of Experience Said,
May 30, 2006 @ 5:25 am
There are a few inacuracies in the original post. Apologies if this seems like a flame but I think if the debate’s to continue we need to have the facts straightened first.
“Matt’s view was essentially that if it was helping the little people or was selfless, then it didn’t matter if it was against the law becuse it wasn’t as bad as if someone had committed the crime for purely selfish reasons.”
Firstly, Matt’s view wasn’t that the law didn’t matter if the cause was just, simply that the law should recognise that as being less an offence then doing it for personal gain (they do….just!)
Secondly, who you calling little!?
“to suggest that a motive should have a serious bearing on the sentence that a crime carries when the actual law that has been broken is the same would be to seriously devalue the law as a whole”
“From a legal angle, you must treat the crimes the same.”
The courts do take your motives (along with lots of other factors) into account. Thats pretty much what they’re there for, apart from establishing guilt in the first place of course. In other words every case is looked at individually, quite the contrary to the second quote. As for your criminal record that can also depend on your motives….
“I could kill someone because they were about to shoot my friend, but would I still be a murderer? Yes, I would. Would I get the same sentance as if I had killed him in cold blood, no.”
That depends on the circumstances. Your lawyer would probably be able to establish (in legal terms) that you had been subjected to provocation; your friend was about to be shot, you feared that they’d die if you did not act. Maybe you didn’t actually mean to kill him or even if you did it was an act of passion – a split second, irrational decission. So you may end up with only Manslaughter, or even Voluntary Manslaughter instead of Murder. All because of your motives 😉 In the eyes of insurers, money lenders and employers you would still be a murderer but by most people you’d be someone who made a tragic error of judgement, or even a hero who saved his friends life.
Motives are everything, both morally and in law 😉
Kieran Said,
May 30, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
I never indicated that motives were not a factor at all in the legal process, but they do tend to have a much larger bearing on the sentencing stage than on the charges themselves that are brought, especially as the prosecution tend to opt for the highest possible charge they feel they have a reasonable chance of getting a conviction on.
While the charge may be reduced during a trial by a judge who feels that the circumstances covered so far prohibits the original charge from ever having a chance of sticking, usually this does not happen. A jury then has to decide (in the majority of cases anyhow) a simple guilty or not guilty verdict. It is usually at the sentancing stage (if applicable) that an particular motive has the most weight, and indeed can knock years off a sentence, or even prevent prison altogether.
I’m was never saying (and I’m sorry if I gave the impression) that motives didn’t matter, I was more trying to focus on the fact that any breaking of the law, for whatever reason and with whatever eventual sentence (unless it gets thrown out of court etc.) is wrong, simply because it is against the law, and as long as it holds any kind of conviction in the end, it remains wrong, regardless of any motives, considered at trial or unconsidered that the perpetrator may feel vindicates them. If you end up getting a sentence for a crime under law and you admit to the charges and/or haven’t lodged and appeal, then what you have done is wrong, regardless of motive and regardless of what you say retrospectively.
If there is agreement on my last statement then I feel the debate is over, however if there is feeling that you can admit to a crime, serve a sentence and then still say that what you did wasn’t wrong, then the debate isn’t over….
Kat Said,
May 30, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
It seems to me, that your definition of “wrong” is synonymous with “illegal” which is something i would hugely disagree with. As i said to you before, to hold that the law is, and should be, the decider of what is morally right, is ridiciulous when considering what some governments decide to do.
Would you have supported the persecution of the Jews just because it was legal?
In reference to your final point, i have an excellent counter example. Certain members of the CND (campaign for nuclear disarmament) have committed crimes such as Criminal damage to property of sites where Nuclear weapons research is taking place. They have then been arrested, pled guilty in court, paid a fine, served community service, etc whatever the sentence the judge decides to give, but they would STILL claim they did the right thing, in trying to battle against Nuclear warfare.
“Matt’s view was essentially that if it was helping the little people or was selfless, then it didn’t matter if it was against the law becuse it wasn’t as bad as if someone had committed the crime for purely selfish reasons. While one can see his point, there is a flaw in the argument. In order to have a society of laws that works, each law must be upheld as much as any other.”
Ok, there ISN’T a flaw in the argument in the way that you say, although, i accept that perhaps the arguement can be disputed. You make a seperate, and equally valid point, that the need for a well functioning society means there must be laws in place that are upheld. However, while i would agree with you, most of the time, i don’t believe in blindly accepting laws, just because they are laws, particularly if i feel them to be wrong.
Most laws are laws that i can rationalise, on moral or any other grounds, as being just and correct and i am perfectly prepared to accept them. Other laws, (not necessarily the law that prompted the initial debate, for i am arguing the idea of going against any law hypothetically here) are not ones that i deem to be correct, and i therefore feel i have no duty in adhereing to them.
While this does pose a problem to the well-run and orderly society, i think we must always be prepared to question laws, even break them on occasions, if we truly feel them to be wrong. Sometimes this will cause a change in the law, in extreme cases, a change in governement and political ideology altogether! But sometimes this change will be a change for the better, and it is only through our determination to go against wrong when we see it that this can ever be hoped for.
Kieran Said,
June 2, 2006 @ 8:57 am
I do agree with a lot of points indicated there, however the key ones on which I disagree and my reasoning:-
“Would you have supported the persecution of the Jews just because it was legal?”
Firstly thats quite a strong example, and secondly it almost tries to make doing the act the same as supporting it, and while neither is something you want to contemplate in the example you gave, there are degrees of severity in crimes. Not only that but if you disagree with a law, it doesn’t mean you have to condone or support it. It doesn’t mean you have to break it though. Bringing it back to the original debate though, what I really mean is that you can disagree with the law without breaking it yourself. You can protest to prove a point and pass comments on injustice rather than breaking the law yourself. While breaking it and saying your piece in court may get you media attention, you get far more by being an unconvicted individual with something to say and an unlimited amount of time to say it.
“Other laws are not ones that i deem to be correct, and i therefore feel i have no duty in adhereing to them.”
Similar response to above really; you can deem a law to be incorrect and protest against it and actively denounce it in public etc. Still doesn’t give you the right to go about breaking it though.