Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I bet every single poster in this thread (including myself) has had thoughts that if they were to be carried out would get us arrested.
Knowing right from wrong and having the willpower to control yourself is what stops you from carrying out those thoughts.
If you show intent to start carrying out thoughts (example: a list of people you want to kill) then authorities should have the right to intervene in some way to prevent you from carrying out your plan.
That being said, I don't always agree with the punishment that is doled out to people that get caught before acting. In many of those cases, I feel they deserve a second chance.
Should we have a Minority Report-like country? Where does the line fall between arresting someone because of what we think they will do as opposed to arresting them after they do something? If someone walks around and says they're going to kill someone, is that grounds to arrest them and keep them locked up? Would we be safer if we arrested people ahead of time? Would we break even in terms of the cost of incarceration compared to the costs of crime? Should we go down the road to preventing crime this way, as opposed to our current system?
Just curious to hear your views.
In civil law jurisdictions, the elements of a crime must be present before you can arrest a person. there must be intent and consummation or started committing the crime. merely thinking of committing a crime is not a crime. you must do it or start doing it.
obviously in common law jurisdictions, just the thought of committing a crime is already punishable. like those prohibiting gang members to congregate. really? how do they know that just congregating a crime is about to be committed? how about if they are just thinking of going to the McDonalds?
One would think that in a country with the second-highest incarceration rate in the world (behind only the Seychelles, a small island nation with a populace the size of Duluth) and one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world, it would begin to dawn on people that "More incarceration!" isn't the solution.
Should we have a Minority Report-like country? Where does the line fall between arresting someone because of what we think they will do as opposed to arresting them after they do something? If someone walks around and says they're going to kill someone, is that grounds to arrest them and keep them locked up? Would we be safer if we arrested people ahead of time? Would we break even in terms of the cost of incarceration compared to the costs of crime? Should we go down the road to preventing crime this way, as opposed to our current system?
Just curious to hear your views.
The inference here seems to be that the law has become the 'mind police'. But, "Conspiracy" is more concrete than that:
"A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.
For example, Andy, Dan, and Alice plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess security, 2) pool their money and buy a gun together, and 3) write a demand letter. All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is actually attempted or completed."
Also, in light of todays terrorism environment, it's much better to over-react, than wait until after the fact. Suppose, for example, someone in an airport claims they are going to blow-up a plane; or someone threatens the life of another (but, doesn't actually kill them); or how about when a 'potential' pedophile 'only' solicits a minor online ... or offers them candy or a puppy to 'take a ride,' but, nothing happens. (??)
this reminds me of an old story, which I like to pass on occasionally.
A woman goes out on a lake in the family rowboat, but her family left all the fishing gear in the boat. A ranger putters over in his speedboat and says: "Ma'am, may I see your fishing license?". Of course, she doesn't have one, so the ranger says "I'm going to have to write you a ticket for fishing without a license, since you have all of the equipment in the boat".
The woman replies: "Fine. But I'm going to have to have you arrested for sexual assault, since you have all of the equipment in YOUR boat".
Do you really want to live in a society that punishes it's members for what they think?
How do you, or anyone, know what someone else is thinking?
We do that all the time. The perpetrator's state of mind can be all that separates a justifiable homicide in self-defense from first-degree murder.
But for the less obvious - he-had-intent-but-didn't-quite-do-it scenarios, it gets complicated. Anyone interested in walk-through of this (and many other) facets of criminal law should invest the time in going through "The illustrated guide to criminal law" - here's the first page of a chaoter covering intent & attempt, but the entire thing is fascinating.
I think that's a dangerous road to go down. Freedom is precious and we should not be so quick to give it up or take it away. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." While that quote is often referred to in the context of discussions about national policy, I think it applies at the individual level as well.
"A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law.
there should be no crime until they commence doing it
Also, in light of todays terrorism environment, it's much better to over-react, than wait until after the fact. Suppose, for example, someone in an airport claims they are going to blow-up a plane; or someone threatens the life of another (but, doesn't actually kill them); or how about when a 'potential' pedophile 'only' solicits a minor online ... or offers them candy or a puppy to 'take a ride,' but, nothing happens. (??)
this is called mala prohibita. it does matter whether he has intention or not as long as he did what is prohibited. threats in itself is a crime. just thinking of committing a crime is not a crime unless he starts doing it
Should we have a Minority Report-like country? Where does the line fall between arresting someone because of what we think they will do as opposed to arresting them after they do something? If someone walks around and says they're going to kill someone, is that grounds to arrest them and keep them locked up? Would we be safer if we arrested people ahead of time? Would we break even in terms of the cost of incarceration compared to the costs of crime? Should we go down the road to preventing crime this way, as opposed to our current system?
Just curious to hear your views.
If you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone will commit a crime, then a short detention would be appropriate. But this would practically require simulating the human brain, and if you could do this, then we'd have bigger things to worry about (robot takeover, anyone?)
Presently, people with certain mental illnesses can be involuntarily committed to a mental institution, which I suppose is the closest thing to what you have in mind.
Luckily we still have judges and juries. People that can, of their own sound mind, attempt to best resolve these issues. Rule of law does have eventual limits. It's unfortunate the amount of centralized decision making that's been had, and the cost and process dictated that require expensive attorneys that sometimes affect outcomes more than anything else, but there's still hope.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
