Is Crime in the Accusation or the Comission?

[aeonicentity]

So here is an important moral question: Is a crime found in the accusation of criminality, or in the comission of the criminality? Some examples to illustrate:

 

A man steals a phone. If he is caught, but the person who was stolen from forgives the criminal and gives him the phone out of free choice, was the theft a crime? In this case the lack of accusation causes there to be no crime comitted.

 

However, is the man still a criminal? even though his actions were forgiven, is he a criminal simply by comitting the crime?

[Wesley]

As the marijuana activists say, "no victim, no crime."

[aeonicentity]

As the marijuana activists say, "no victim, no crime."

that may be true, but You'd have a hard time saying that any human action doesn't necessarally cause effect on others. For example, smoking pot DOES effect others, and often in distinct ways.

 

But that is off topic.

[Wesley]

If it does and I complain then I am a victim and if I can prove that they cause me harm, then there will be a crime.

 

Back on topic, even now if someone takes a dime from me at work then I won't care because it isn't worth it and I will not complain that a crime has taken place.

 

Thus, for practical purposes at least a crime has not taken place.

[cynicist]

So here is an important moral question: Is a crime found in the accusation of criminality, or in the comission of the criminality? Some examples to illustrate:

 

A man steals a phone. If he is caught, but the person who was stolen from forgives the criminal and gives him the phone out of free choice, was the theft a crime? In this case the lack of accusation causes there to be no crime comitted.

 

However, is the man still a criminal? even though his actions were forgiven, is he a criminal simply by comitting the crime?

 

The answer is it was still a crime and he is still therefore a criminal. The person doing the stealing knew he did not own the phone and did not ask the owner if he could have it or make an exchange for it. The intent was to deprive him of his property. The fact that the owner forgave him doesn't change this, even if it alters the consequences for the criminal. (like not pursuing legal action against him)

 

It can get rather complicated when you have an example of say, someone losing a watch and then finding one that looks identical in his friends house and taking it thinking he had just left his there. Technically he is taking what he does not own, but is unaware of this fact, so we would say that he is mistaken rather than a thief even though he fits a literal interpretation of one. The conclusion here is that intent is an important factor in criminality, despite how difficult it is to prove.

[Wesley]

The answer is it was still a crime and he is still therefore a criminal. The person doing the stealing knew he did not own the phone and did not ask the owner if he could have it or make an exchange for it. The intent was to deprive him of his property. The fact that the owner forgave him doesn't change this, even if it alters the consequences for the criminal. (like not pursuing legal action against him)

If I choose to not exercise property rights over my cell phone then I should be able to do so. The forgiveness could be a claim on my part that right before the guy took it, I didn't want it and it had reverted to unowned property. He then had taken it and claimed ownership over it.

 

This is similar to the idea that a group of people could get together and join a commune if they want to where people constantly "steal" from each other, but since none of them are exercising their property rights it is not theft.

[aeonicentity]

If it does and I complain then I am a victim and if I can prove that they cause me harm, then there will be a crime.

 

Back on topic, even now if someone takes a dime from me at work then I won't care because it isn't worth it and I will not complain that a crime has taken place.

 

Thus, for practical purposes at least a crime has not taken place.

but since this is a philosophy board, lets discard practicality here =P

 

In all seriousness though, that argument raises the question "does the size of the crime make it a crime", which then requires us to draw an arbitrary level of 'harm' which defines a crime. There is a lot of moral danger there since it could be said that 'as long as I get away with it, its not a crime, and I'm no criminal'

 

 

The answer is it was still a crime and he is still therefore a criminal. The person doing the stealing knew he did not own the phone and did not ask the owner if he could have it or make an exchange for it. The intent was to deprive him of his property. The fact that the owner forgave him doesn't change this, even if it alters the consequences for the criminal. (like not pursuing legal action against him)

 

It can get rather complicated when you have an example of say, someone losing a watch and then finding one that looks identical in his friends house and taking it thinking he had just left his there. Technically he is taking what he does not own, but is unaware of this fact, so we would say that he is mistaken rather than a thief even though he fits a literal interpretation of one. The conclusion here is that intent is an important factor in criminality, despite how difficult it is to prove.

 

 

Thank you for this thoughtful reply, so If I understand you correctly you're saying that there are two different questions which must be asked , the first being "am I a criminal?" and the other being "should I be punished?" Since these two facts are not neccessarally related, you would say that obviously, crime is inherent in the comission?

[endostate]

that may be true, but You'd have a hard time saying that any human action doesn't necessarally cause effect on others. For example, smoking pot DOES effect others, and often in distinct ways.

 

But that is off topic.

Indeed - alcohol and tobacco as well.

[cynicist]

If I choose to not exercise property rights over my cell phone then I should be able to do so. The forgiveness could be a claim on my part that right before the guy took it, I didn't want it and it had reverted to unowned property. He then had taken it and claimed ownership over it.

 

This is similar to the idea that a group of people could get together and join a commune if they want to where people constantly "steal" from each other, but since none of them are exercising their property rights it is not theft.

 

That is not reflected in the scenario the poster presented. If you donated the phone, or if the guy found it in a junkyard, that would be a different situation. In the one OP mentioned, the guy knew he was stealing. (taking property that was owned without the owner's consent and with the intent of depriving him of it)

 

 

Thank you for this thoughtful reply, so If I understand you correctly you're saying that there are two different questions which must be asked , the first being "am I a criminal?" and the other being "should I be punished?" Since these two facts are not neccessarally related, you would say that obviously, crime is inherent in the comission?

 

Yes exactly. It depends a lot on what constitutes a crime. The drug laws are particularly useful as an example since I disagree with them. To me they are illegitimate and invalid, so I would not see someone using drugs as a criminal even though a state prosecutor would. 

 

If I can reframe your questions, I look at it like this: 

 

What are the rules?

Is the person breaking them?

 

That is the only relevant criteria as I see it in establishing whether someone is a criminal or not. This methodology is objective, despite the subjective nature of the rules in our current legal system.

 

 

 

So here is an important moral question: Is a crime found in the accusation of criminality, or in the comission of the criminality? Some examples to illustrate:

 

This may seem nitpicky, apologies if you think so, but technically it's not even a question of morality. It only becomes so if you accept the premise that laws are moral.

[aeonicentity]

This may seem nitpicky, apologies if you think so, but technically it's not even a question of morality. It only becomes so if you accept the premise that laws are moral.

 

Lets assume for the argument that the laws are moral, since the question at heart is not to determine if certain laws are legitmate, but rather when is a crime comitted, and the nature of crime and punishment.

[WorBlux]

So here is an important moral question: Is a crime found in the accusation of criminality, or in the commission of the criminality? Some examples to illustrate:

 

A man steals a phone. If he is caught, but the person who was stolen from forgives the criminal and gives him the phone out of free choice, was the theft a crime? In this case the lack of accusation causes there to be no crime committed.

 

However, is the man still a criminal? even though his actions were forgiven, is he a criminal simply by committing the crime?

It's certainly complicated

 

 

Sense this is a legal question, let's use legal definitions

 

A crime is a tort against the body politic.

 

As we reject political  bodies here, we can skip straight to torts.

 

A tort involves (1) some specific act or commission, (2) contrary to law (3) that causes (4) a particular loss, harm, or injury to another.

 

A tortfeasor is a person who commits the act even if that other chooses not to present a case to the court.

 

So the tort is in the act, and the act is an objective thing as is the loss.

 

However now for the tricky part. Elements 2 and 3 are necessarily matters of legal opinion for which courts tend to recognize their own opinions or those of other courts so legally a tort doesn't occur unless they say it did.

 

So it's not exactly one or the other.  So while the tort rests in the specific act, a court won't speak on the matter without an accusation of such and act being presented such that they can try the evidence's sufficiency to meet the standard of the court.

 

So while we can't call an act a tort in the full sense without a legal opinion backing us up, we can still refer to acts as torts by analogy. This act is like other acts which have been found tortuitous.

[cynicist]

Lets assume for the argument that the laws are moral, since the question at heart is not to determine if certain laws are legitmate, but rather when is a crime comitted, and the nature of crime and punishment.

 

That simplifies things quite a bit. Then like I said above the matter becomes a question of whether or not the rule was broken. If you are considering theft, the goal of the legal system would be to prove intent, thereby proving the rule was actually broken; Obvious if there's evidence that I'm bashing the window of your car to get to the stereo, but more difficult if I claim to have found your phone on the sidewalk. If the rule is something like, "possession of marijuana", the determination is even easier, which is why I think the law in general trends that way.

[aeonicentity]

That simplifies things quite a bit. Then like I said above the matter becomes a question of whether or not the rule was broken. If you are considering theft, the goal of the legal system would be to prove intent, thereby proving the rule was actually broken; Obvious if there's evidence that I'm bashing the window of your car to get to the stereo, but more difficult if I claim to have found your phone on the sidewalk. If the rule is something like, "possession of marijuana", the determination is even easier, which is why I think the law in general trends that way.

 

Well, lets take an extreme then, if criminality is caused by intent, could I arrest someone for having decided to commit a crime, even though they haven't yet done so? Assuming of course, that I have evidence to support such a claim.

[cynicist]

Well, lets take an extreme then, if criminality is caused by intent, could I arrest someone for having decided to commit a crime, even though they haven't yet done so? Assuming of course, that I have evidence to support such a claim.

 

I never said criminality is caused by intent, but that it is determined in part by intent (which to be fair is derived from action in the end, since you can't read people's minds). If I grab your mp3 player, am I a thief? That depends: If I found it on the sidewalk with your name on it and I returned it to you, the answer is no. If I thought it was mine and grabbed it by mistake, it's still no. The mere action of picking up your mp3 player isn't a crime itself until your actions show a particular intent. 

 

So the answer to your question would be no, since intent and action are both required. Until the rule has been broken by action there is no crime.

[Extraintuitive]

If criminality is defined by morality and morality is not subjective, then criminality can neither be based on the intent or result of ones actions because morality cannot be objectively defined by either intent ( but I meant well) or effect (but I saved you millions of dollars.)

 

While stealing a penny may be inconsequential because nobody would bother to spend more than a penny's-worth of time to enforce something like that, it is still technically immoral.

 

Taking a phone without consent is immoral, it depends on the owner of the phone whether or not to hold the thief accountable for his actions or to absolve him of his crime.

 

Say the thief took the phone but he had a really good reason for taking it like to make an emergency call. The thief is totally responsible for his/her actions and the owner of the phone may choose to require restitution for the theft. While the reason for stealing the phone was enough to justify stealing it the reason behind the theft has no effect on the morality of the action.

 

Criminality is not something that exists for you to "catch" like a cold. It is just a logical tool to find out if you have the right to demand restitution or justify self defense. in the case of the accidentally stolen watch, if someone becomes aware of the theft then they have the right to set the situation straight. Intent has no weight in figuring out if something is immoral or not.

 

The label of "criminal" is not something that happens to you after you commit an immoral action, it is only a piece of language used to define someone who has committed an immoral action. it is your choice whether you choose to ascribe the label or not. Is it likely that you will call someone who inadvertently took someones watch a criminal? Probably not.

 

My thought are really scattered, but I hope I brought some clarity to the question.

[aeonicentity]

Your thoughts are clear, but i'm not entirely certain that I can agree with everything you've expressed.

 

For example, I have a hard time considering the idea that a theft out of ignorance or imperitive is still a theft, and the victim merely forgives the 'criminal'. For example, no court in the world would convit a man of theft of a cell phone if he took, even if the other person was a dick and pressed charges anyway.

[s.petry]

What you seem to be expressing by "theft out of ignorance" does not change the law.  I'll try to stick to Law and Justice by Socrates' definitions.  If you intentionally broke the rules, you would be a criminal.  If you did not intentionally break the law, you would not be a criminal.  The degree of negligence or intent only comes in to play during the punishment for a crime.

 

If you intentionally broke the law, then the degree of intention does not matter.  "I saw the phone on the table and took it" is the same as "I took it and only planned to borrow it for a while" is the same as "I saw it on the street and took it for my own".  You knowingly broke the rules of society in all three cases.

 

If you unintentionally broke the law, it also does not matter.  "It looked just like mine and I put it in my pocket" is the same as "It must have fallen into my luck sack because I noticed it when I went to lunch".

 

Where you may be included to argue is that a person could tell an untrue story regarding the crime to get out of the punishment.  Even if you told such an untrue statement, you would still be a criminal.  The difference is only that other members of society may not also see you as a criminal.

 

Because of people having the ability to lie, many legal systems use a peer jury to determine the validity of your case.  If you were caught drunk driving and plead innocent, your peers that know you drink heavily at times should be able to turn away the untrue statements.  The US system has been devoid of fairness for some time, but the premise was originally there.

 

Going back to your first point where the person requested you not be punished.  In that instance, your guilt or innocence does not change.  Only the punishement for commiting the crime would be changed.  In our current legal system, this may require the person "drop charges".  In no way does that make you not a criminal, it just means that our society has an unfair mechanism in place where a victim has no sway on the punisment phase of criminality.

 

My use of "you" in this post is a generalization for ease in communication and not a personal attack or assumption that _you_ have done anything wrong.

[Bradford26]

So here is an important moral question: Is a crime found in the accusation of criminality, or in the comission of the criminality? Some examples to illustrate:

 

A man steals a phone. If he is caught, but the person who was stolen from forgives the criminal and gives him the phone out of free choice, was the theft a crime? In this case the lack of accusation causes there to be no crime comitted.

 

However, is the man still a criminal? even though his actions were forgiven, is he a criminal simply by comitting the crime?

I submit that a person is said to have committed a crime based on commission, accusation and intent.

 

Commission

The person must do something that effects someone else's property.

 

Intent

The person must have effected someone else's property on purpose or through negligence of some kind.

 

Accusation

This term is not helpful, since being accused of a crime after a person effects someone else's personal property on purpose doesn't necessarily make them a criminal.

 

Violation of Free Will of the Owner

A person must purposefully effect property belonging to an owner who does not want them to effect the property in that way or at all. This works better because it places the focus on property rights instead of law or rules of society.

 

Examples

Here I will examine each combination of these three principles to determine criminality in each case.

 

+Commission +Intent +Violation of Free Will

This is clearly a crime. A person who effects something belonging to someone else on purpose against the owner's free will is committing a crime.

 

+Commission +Intent +Violation of Free Will -Violation of Free Will

Sometimes the owner does not care that the property was effected. Does the criminality change? The person was intending to violate the free will of the owner. Since he intended to violate free will and still committed the action, I consider this a crime.

 

+Commission +Intent -Violation of Free Will

In this case, the person takes something on purpose which belongs to someone, knowing that the owner is indifferent or wants them to take it. This does not consititute a crime.

 

Edit: It might be helpful to think about this one as though the property owner has relinquished his ownership of the property.

 

+Commission -Intent +Violation of Free Will

In this case, a person has effected someone else's property on accident. They may owe or volunteer restitution, but they are not a criminal since the violation was accidental.

 

+Commission -Intent -Violation of Free Will

A person who effects someone else's property on accident while the owner does not care is clearly not a criminal.

 

-Commission +Intent +Violation of Free Will

This one could be controversial. A person who intends to effect someone's property against their will has done nothing wrong unless thoughts can be crimes. If thoughts cannot be crimes, then this person has not committed a crime.

 

-Commission +Intent -Violation of Free Will

It's not a crime to intend to take something from someone who wouldn't care if they took it.

 

-Commission -Intent +Violation of Free Will

I think this would apply if someone is offended by your opinion or choice of clothing or nonviolent behavior. I don't consider these crimes.

 

-Commission -Intent -Violation of Free Will

I'll include this for completeness. This could possibly be sin. Sinning is accidentally not effecting someone's property when they want you to... or something.

 

I think this summarizes the concepts pretty well. Thanks for reading. I look forward to your feedback.

[dsayers]

This is one of the reasons I don't like the word "crime." Immoral is an objective consideration. If somebody exercises ownership over that which they understand belongs to somebody else, it is immoral. If the owner of the object chooses to forego restitution, that is their prerogative.

 

I especially do not like the word "criminal." If somebody does steal a phone, provides restitution, and never steals again, what use is it to regard them as somebody who once acted immorally and has since made up for it?

 

Indeed - alcohol and tobacco as well.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20101106_WOC504_0.gif

 

If a person drinks alcohol, gets into a car, and runs into other people, the alcohol isn't responsible. It may alter the person's mental agility, but they still made the decision to drink and drive despite ubiquitous information pertaining to the dangers.

 

If a person smokes tobacco, acquires an illness as a result and dies, it cannot even be said that the smoker hurt other people. That they didn't distance themselves from a person who was self-medicating and/or killing themselves is their decision. When you befriend somebody, you're befriending their every action that could lead to their premature death.

 

I'm not sure what was meant by the initial claim that smoking marijuana has effects on others.

[aeonicentity]

 

-Commission +Intent +Violation of Free Will

This one could be controversial. A person who intends to effect someone's property against their will has done nothing wrong unless thoughts can be crimes. If thoughts cannot be crimes, then this person has not committed a crime.

thank you for your thoughtful response!This statement indeed is controversial, for example, Is a man justified in self defense if he can prove that the other person had malfeasant intentions? I think that this is the premise of certain state's "stand your ground" laws which enable someone to strike first with lethal force based off of the intentions of the malfeasor. To be clear, I don't want to retry George Zimmerman here, but it is a legitimate example.

[Bradford26]

thank you for your thoughtful response!This statement indeed is controversial, for example, Is a man justified in self defense if he can prove that the other person had malfeasant intentions? I think that this is the premise of certain state's "stand your ground" laws which enable someone to strike first with lethal force based off of the intentions of the malfeasor. To be clear, I don't want to retry George Zimmerman here, but it is a legitimate example.

 

I'm glad that I could help.

 

If a person behaves in such a way as to cause others to perceive impending harm, could that be considered initiation of force? If this counts as initiation of force, then a "stand your ground" instance might simply be defending yourself against the behavior which caused a perception of impending harm. Thinking about it this way relies more on the perceived impending harm than on whether physical harm was actually about to happen.