When is a Crime "Tolerable"?

[Hobbs]

Insipired by the thread here: http://customerssuck.com/board/showthread.php?t=60469

When is it okay for a crime to be overlooked? When you disagree with the law? Or is it something else? Should a crime always be reported?

For me, there is no reason to overlook someone's commission of a crime. As an officer, it's my obligation to uphold the law and the rules and regulations of the military. We have Zero Tolerance laws, of which I agree with. Our profession is very dangerous, and we can't have Airmen stoned while handling explosives or ordinance.

[Stormraven]

In my opinion, anything which doesn't involve Force or Fraud shouldn't be a crime in the first place.

Negligent behaviour is a gray area, but I usually prefer to strictly punish the outcome of the behaviour, rather than the behaviour itself. A stoned airman handling explosives gets - assuming he lives through his mistake - attempted murder or murder charges, since he was willfully negligent. Same with a drunk driver.

But a lot of what we call crimes today are nothing of the sort. If a person wants to take drugs, I could care less, as long as they can be responsible about it. (And given the number of people who can be, and are, responsible with alcohol, I have no doubt drugs can work the same way).

If a person wants to sell drugs on the street, as long as he's not engaged in Force or Fraud (and selling to children, who don't have the capacity to judge the dangers, would be Fraud) I don't care.

The same goes for prostitution, gambling and a lot of other 'crimes'. If there's no victim of Force or Fraud, there's no crime.

[Hobbs]

So, I take it then, your opinion is that, you can break the law when you disagree with it?

[smileyeagle1021]

When is it okay for a crime to be overlooked? When you disagree with the law? Or is it something else? Should a crime always be reported?

Would you have reported a black man using the white's only facilities back in the 60's? Would you report a gay man to Uganda officials? Would you report a woman who has lost her virginity through no fault of her own prior to marriage to Iranian police?
Not everything that is illegal is criminal (and likewise not everything that is criminal is illegal). I break the law every single day. I jaywalk, I engage in homosexual relationships (which while not enforceable, there is still a law in Utah making homosexuality illegal), and most serious of all, I don't report odd job income on my taxes.
There are plenty of reasons to ignore illegal activity... could be moral grounds (such as not reporting the black man for violating segregation laws or not reporting a gay man for being gay) or could be on the grounds that our legal system has much better things to worry about than some triviality law.

[Hobbs]

No, no and no. But when the breakage of the law is something that is commonly accepted as being, not just "morally" wrong but 'actually' wrong, then shouldn't it be reported?

[HYHYBT]

It depends on the severity both of the crime and the way it was broken. At the extreme ends, most everybody would say willful murder needs to be reported (though even there, some wouldn't actually do it) while nobody expects prosecution of those who briefly slip up to 56 in a 55 zone.

[protege]

The same goes for prostitution, gambling and a lot of other 'crimes'. If there's no victim of Force or Fraud, there's no crime.

Problem is, that many of these so-called "victimless" crimes bring in other problems.

[Rageaholic]

I take stormravens side on this. As long as people aren't engaging in activity that harms another person or effects them in a negative way, than I don't think it's absolutely necessary to report them. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's right. It's not a black and white issue. People make mistakes, but that doesn't mean they are bad people.

Also, there are a lot of things that can be solved without police intervention. Underage drinking, kid smoking pot? If parents or peers can get involved, they can solve the problem. Why should the police have to devote attention to a problem that can easily be solved another way. Also, if the minor offender changes his or her ways, what's the point in getting the police involved?

Things like murder, rape, theivery, fraud, vandalism, or any kind of recklessness should be reported for a reason. But if the only reason to report something is "it's the law", than I don't think it's necessary.

[elsporko]

Problem is, that many of these so-called "victimless" crimes bring in other problems.

Only if the person is irresponcible. You can't use the fact if done wrong something might hurt somebody as a reason to make something illegal. Thats the kind of thinking that gets trans fats banned. Anything can be dangerous if done too much or in the wrong way. Action figures shouldn't be banned because some nut might buy toys instead of food for his kids.

[protege]

So, you'd rather live in a neighborhood where drug-dealing is done in the open...and gang turf wars (because of said drug-dealing) are constant? Sorry, but no thanks.

[Boozy]

So, you'd rather live in a neighborhood where drug-dealing is done in the open...and gang turf wars (because of said drug-dealing) are constant? Sorry, but no thanks.

If drugs were legalized, there probably wouldn't be turf wars. Gang violence is as much a product of the War on Drugs as anything else.

[elsporko]

So, you'd rather live in a neighborhood where drug-dealing is done in the open...and gang turf wars (because of said drug-dealing) are constant? Sorry, but no thanks.

Doing drugs doesn't cause turf wars. Gangs cause turf wars. If drugs were legal there wouldn't be drug dealers or as much gang fighting. Even as it is somebody doing drugs isn't a problem. People getting violent over drugs is the problem. Just like how drinking by itself isn't a problem but a person who drinks and gets in a fight is a problem because he isn't handling himself properly.

[Greenday]

Doing drugs doesn't cause turf wars. Gangs cause turf wars. If drugs were legal there wouldn't be drug dealers or as much gang fighting. Even as it is somebody doing drugs isn't a problem. People getting violent over drugs is the problem. Just like how drinking by itself isn't a problem but a person who drinks and gets in a fight is a problem because he isn't handling himself properly.

Except I'm pretty sure there is a damn good reason drugs are illegal and should remain so.

But since most drugs these days are being sold through gangs, when you buy drugs, you support gangs financially enabling them to continue wreaking havoc.

[XCashier]

Negligent behaviour is a gray area, but I usually prefer to strictly punish the outcome of the behaviour, rather than the behaviour itself. A stoned airman handling explosives gets - assuming he lives through his mistake - attempted murder or murder charges, since he was willfully negligent. Same with a drunk driver.

I would rather not lose any innocent lives to a stoned airman or drunk driver, and would prefer they be arrested before it happens.

Want to get drunk or stoned? Do it when you're off the clock and in the privacy of your own home (or someplace you can safely sleep it off, like a friend's home). I don't want anyone under the influence out on the street or at work, especially if they'll be handling dangerous items or operating machinery. It could be my life on the line.

[Stormraven]

I would prefer not to have anyone driving or working while intoxicated or stoned, sure.

I would also prefer to see an end to all preventable collisions. The person who's distracted with his cell phone or his radio/CD player, the person next to them, their children in the back seat. Every one of those distractions kills people as well. But I'm not interested in seeing laws passed against them, and people fined or sent to jail because they broke those laws.

I prefer that people learn that, however much they might 'get away' with, the consequences of their actions are potentially very serious.

More to the point, however, it is quite often a repeat offender who kills or injures while drunk driving - even if they've injured someone before. Take them off the streets entirely with a felony conviction, and you've made sure that - for the length of their sentence, at least, they're not driving.

Plus, it gets rid of stupid bits like a person getting hit with a DUI for sleeping in their car. They showed enough good judgement to either not drive, or to pull over and stop before they did any damage, yet they're still being punished.