Do justifiable crimes exist?

[Sushan]

Criminality and justification are not points along the same axis in my way of understanding. Criminality is a legal descriptor on whether someone has been proven to have broken certain rules (laws). Of course all rules (laws) are written prospectively with the understanding that following said rules USUALLY is better (creates less harm) than not following the rules.

The big question is harm to whom or to what.
Many laws are codified to protect the interests of the rulers or the state, often to the detriment of the people.

However no rule can take into account every conceivable set of circumstances surrounding an action, so of course every rule can have a set of circumstances where violating the rule creates less harm than following the rule (which is the justification).

Very true. Too many laws favor lawmakers or those who pay bribes to lawmakers. Though justifiable law breaking exists to the dispassionate observer.

I think bribes and corruption go along with not the laws themselves but the people who take decisions and exert punishments in the name of those laws. It is similar to the religious leaders who work towards their personal agendas while being in the cloak of the religions. Although the religions get the blame in such occasions, it is not the religions are to be blamed, but those corrupted religious leaders.

[Sculptor1]

When we talk about justifiable crimes, I think there is something as justifiable crimes. When an action is taken on the grounds of self-defense to protect oneself against dangers, even if such actions are crimes, I think to a point it is justifiable.

The right to strike and protest have been restricted by the UK government. This alone is a reason to brake a law.

There is no right to strike under UK law. However, under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their interests. This right can be restricted by law, but only so far as is necessary in a democratic society, e.g. for the protection of security or public safety, or the prevention of crime. Violent protest is not protected.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/is-ther ... in-the-uk/

Everyone has the right to peaceful protest. While there is no specific right in law, it is enshrined in the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, protected respectively under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights, which was directly incorporated into domestic British law by the Human Rights Act.

Limitations to the right to protest in England and Wales were set out in the Public Order Act 1986 and this year in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC). There is also a common law offence of breach of the peace, and an offence of the same name exists separately in Scotland, where it is also a statutory offence under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Northern Ireland has its own legislation governing protests – the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which includes conditions that can be imposed on public processions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -in-the-uk

Please correct me if I am wrong. I understand that you are unhappy about the limitations for striking and protesting. But I think these things should have some limits for the betterment of the general public. What do you say?

I say that not having a formal right to strike is not the same as being denied or having that right restricted.
The right exists in the absence of any law to restrict.
Since the absence of a law does not imply a lack of natural right.
You objection is pedantic and not relevant.

[Sculptor1]

Criminality and justification are not points along the same axis in my way of understanding. Criminality is a legal descriptor on whether someone has been proven to have broken certain rules (laws). Of course all rules (laws) are written prospectively with the understanding that following said rules USUALLY is better (creates less harm) than not following the rules.

The big question is harm to whom or to what.
Many laws are codified to protect the interests of the rulers or the state, often to the detriment of the people.

However no rule can take into account every conceivable set of circumstances surrounding an action, so of course every rule can have a set of circumstances where violating the rule creates less harm than following the rule (which is the justification).

I am not very sure about that. Maybe that was the practice in the ancient era in which the kings and the land owners ruled the majority. But nowadays I think the rules are made for the betterment of the society. And in the occasions in which the rules are in favor of the rulers instead of the society, people go on and change them. I am not stating that this is a perfect world. But the society and the less privileged ones have a value for their voice nowadays more than what it had in the past.

You are laughably wrong here and you are assuming that democracy is effective.

[Pattern-chaser]

...certain crimes are justifiable if they are committed in order to remove obstacles to the higher goals of 'extraordinary' men. (Crime and Punishment - Wikipedia)

Can we justify crimes if the ultimate aim was extraordinary? Will a crime be a 'non-crime' if it was used to exert justice?

In my opinion — and I think it must be a mere opinion, as I see this as a moral question —

IF ((Action = NOT(UnJust) AND (HarmDoneByAction = NONE)) THEN (Action IS_NOT_A Crime).

Obviously, this is dependent on what we understand by "just" or "unjust" (and how we see 'harm')...

Seems like you are a computer programmer.

Guilty as charged. The way I expressed it is the clearest exposition I could come up with.

Let's take a robbery as an example. The victim is being harmed and the act is unjust. So the victim gets the right to go to courts seeking justice.

Fair enough.

Let's take an incident in which a beggar is being killed by someone. The beggar had no family and no one else was harmed by the action. Whether the action was just or unjust remains as a question. But the state will file a case and look for the murderer since the action is taken as an act against the government.

The beggar was harmed! This would seem to make the killing unjust, wouldn't it?

Law and legal jurisdiction is very much complex and confusing.

I don't think it need be. If we move away from laws that mandate this sentence for that crime, and concentrate on delivering justice, matters become much simpler. Laws should be guidelines, not unbreakable rules.

[Pattern-chaser]

When we talk about justifiable crimes, I think there is something as justifiable crimes. When an action is taken on the grounds of self-defense to protect oneself against dangers, even if such actions are crimes, I think to a point it is justifiable.

I think this is just a matter of how we use the word. I would say that if an action is justifiable, it isn't a crime. But I see the point you're making, and the way you are using "crime", and I agree with what you're saying.

I think the words 'crime' and 'justifiable' should be kept seperately. A crime does not become non-crime just because the action is justifiable. Even if you kill someone in self-defence, killing will still be a crime. Only the intention will decide whether you will be punished or will be able to get away.

I think an alleged 'crime' does become a non-crime if the action is justifiable.

But, as I have commented already, it depends on how we use the word "crime". Here, I'm using crime one way, and you are using it another. I don't think we can, could, or should conclude that either one of us is right in this. But equally, let's not get distracted by a simple difference in word usage!

[Pattern-chaser]

Criminality and justification are not points along the same axis in my way of understanding. Criminality is a legal descriptor on whether someone has been proven to have broken certain rules (laws). Of course all rules (laws) are written prospectively with the understanding that following said rules USUALLY is better (creates less harm) than not following the rules. However no rule can take into account every conceivable set of circumstances surrounding an action, so of course every rule can have a set of circumstances where violating the rule creates less harm than following the rule (which is the justification).

This is why I think laws should be guidelines, presented to courts as such, allowing courts the freedom to dispense justice for each individual case. Murder is mostly wrong, on that we all agree. But there are also circumstances in which killing someone was the correct — or the least incorrect — course of action. I think we can all agree on that, too. Justice is what matters; breaking a law is not necessarily undesirable or unacceptable.

[Sushan]

When we talk about justifiable crimes, I think there is something as justifiable crimes. When an action is taken on the grounds of self-defense to protect oneself against dangers, even if such actions are crimes, I think to a point it is justifiable.

The right to strike and protest have been restricted by the UK government. This alone is a reason to brake a law.

There is no right to strike under UK law. However, under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their interests. This right can be restricted by law, but only so far as is necessary in a democratic society, e.g. for the protection of security or public safety, or the prevention of crime. Violent protest is not protected.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/is-ther ... in-the-uk/

Everyone has the right to peaceful protest. While there is no specific right in law, it is enshrined in the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, protected respectively under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights, which was directly incorporated into domestic British law by the Human Rights Act.

Limitations to the right to protest in England and Wales were set out in the Public Order Act 1986 and this year in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC). There is also a common law offence of breach of the peace, and an offence of the same name exists separately in Scotland, where it is also a statutory offence under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Northern Ireland has its own legislation governing protests – the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which includes conditions that can be imposed on public processions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -in-the-uk

Please correct me if I am wrong. I understand that you are unhappy about the limitations for striking and protesting. But I think these things should have some limits for the betterment of the general public. What do you say?

I say that not having a formal right to strike is not the same as being denied or having that right restricted.
The right exists in the absence of any law to restrict.
Since the absence of a law does not imply a lack of natural right.
You objection is pedantic and not relevant.

Having no law to restrict something does not imply that we have the right to do that. I am not a law expert. But I think that there is no law restricting going nude to public places. But that does not give anyone the right to do so. And if you do so, the law enforcing authorities will take away you under laws like disturbing the public. And the same applies to striking and protests as well. Even though there were no laws restricting especially the strikes and protests, the law enforcing authorities will have abundant ways and means to interrupt such things using other rules and laws in the law books.

[Sushan]

Criminality and justification are not points along the same axis in my way of understanding. Criminality is a legal descriptor on whether someone has been proven to have broken certain rules (laws). Of course all rules (laws) are written prospectively with the understanding that following said rules USUALLY is better (creates less harm) than not following the rules.

The big question is harm to whom or to what.
Many laws are codified to protect the interests of the rulers or the state, often to the detriment of the people.

However no rule can take into account every conceivable set of circumstances surrounding an action, so of course every rule can have a set of circumstances where violating the rule creates less harm than following the rule (which is the justification).

I am not very sure about that. Maybe that was the practice in the ancient era in which the kings and the land owners ruled the majority. But nowadays I think the rules are made for the betterment of the society. And in the occasions in which the rules are in favor of the rulers instead of the society, people go on and change them. I am not stating that this is a perfect world. But the society and the less privileged ones have a value for their voice nowadays more than what it had in the past.

You are laughably wrong here and you are assuming that democracy is effective.

Democracy may not effective as it could have been. But to compare the era with democracy with the era without democracy, we should have lived in that previous era, which I assume that neither you nor me have done. But from the history lessons that I have learned (I know that you are an expert in history compared to me, and I think you may have heard these too), I know that there was far less democracy under the autocratic leaders. So I think we should understand and appreciate what we are having in our hands before demanding for more and changes.

[Sushan]

...certain crimes are justifiable if they are committed in order to remove obstacles to the higher goals of 'extraordinary' men. (Crime and Punishment - Wikipedia)

Can we justify crimes if the ultimate aim was extraordinary? Will a crime be a 'non-crime' if it was used to exert justice?

In my opinion — and I think it must be a mere opinion, as I see this as a moral question —

IF ((Action = NOT(UnJust) AND (HarmDoneByAction = NONE)) THEN (Action IS_NOT_A Crime).

Obviously, this is dependent on what we understand by "just" or "unjust" (and how we see 'harm')...

Seems like you are a computer programmer.

Guilty as charged. The way I expressed it is the clearest exposition I could come up with.

Let's take a robbery as an example. The victim is being harmed and the act is unjust. So the victim gets the right to go to courts seeking justice.

Fair enough.

Let's take an incident in which a beggar is being killed by someone. The beggar had no family and no one else was harmed by the action. Whether the action was just or unjust remains as a question. But the state will file a case and look for the murderer since the action is taken as an act against the government.

The beggar was harmed! This would seem to make the killing unjust, wouldn't it?

Law and legal jurisdiction is very much complex and confusing.

I don't think it need be. If we move away from laws that mandate this sentence for that crime, and concentrate on delivering justice, matters become much simpler. Laws should be guidelines, not unbreakable rules.

Yes, the beggar was harmed. But he is already dead and there is no more a victim of that unjust. So whether it is just or unjust, there is no post event affect. Yet, the state choose to file a case against the murderer. And if this was the very first murder (or even the braking of law) of that murderer, and if it was the last of him, he would face unjust by being punished for that crime.

Yes, rules should be guidelines. But the danger of that is, we humans easily break the existing rules. So there will not be any need to even think about what might happen to guidelines. A clever lawyer can reduce the punishment of his client who is a known serial killer, while we have a set of rules which are written in books. Imagine what will happen if all those were guidelines.

And for the Judge (or the jury) it will be very difficult to make a final decision, especially a decision about the punishment, as it will be a own decision of that judge rather than exercising an already set punishment.

[Sushan]

When we talk about justifiable crimes, I think there is something as justifiable crimes. When an action is taken on the grounds of self-defense to protect oneself against dangers, even if such actions are crimes, I think to a point it is justifiable.

I think this is just a matter of how we use the word. I would say that if an action is justifiable, it isn't a crime. But I see the point you're making, and the way you are using "crime", and I agree with what you're saying.

I think the words 'crime' and 'justifiable' should be kept seperately. A crime does not become non-crime just because the action is justifiable. Even if you kill someone in self-defence, killing will still be a crime. Only the intention will decide whether you will be punished or will be able to get away.

I think an alleged 'crime' does become a non-crime if the action is justifiable.

But, as I have commented already, it depends on how we use the word "crime". Here, I'm using crime one way, and you are using it another. I don't think we can, could, or should conclude that either one of us is right in this. But equally, let's not get distracted by a simple difference in word usage!

Well, the two of us can just speak our minds and be happy about that, since we are just discussing a topic in a forum. But when it comes the practice of law, the words are the weapons that the lawyers use to twist the cases. By including, excluding, changing, twisting words, they give magical outcomes to the cases that are argued in the courts. Yes, the action will be a non-crime when it is justified in the courts, but the action itself will be a crime. Will you easily forget if someone was killed by your hands while trying to protect yourself? The court will free you. But your heart will not free you since the action was a crime and nothing can change that.

[Sushan]

Criminality and justification are not points along the same axis in my way of understanding. Criminality is a legal descriptor on whether someone has been proven to have broken certain rules (laws). Of course all rules (laws) are written prospectively with the understanding that following said rules USUALLY is better (creates less harm) than not following the rules. However no rule can take into account every conceivable set of circumstances surrounding an action, so of course every rule can have a set of circumstances where violating the rule creates less harm than following the rule (which is the justification).

This is why I think laws should be guidelines, presented to courts as such, allowing courts the freedom to dispense justice for each individual case. Murder is mostly wrong, on that we all agree. But there are also circumstances in which killing someone was the correct — or the least incorrect — course of action. I think we can all agree on that, too. Justice is what matters; breaking a law is not necessarily undesirable or unacceptable.

I can agree with both of you. Maybe this is my obsessive personality speaking, but I think it is easy to handle situations when everything is clearly written down. If we see something missing or necessary to amend while taking action, then we have to update such things on the go. That is what happens in the 'Law World' when the judges quote earlier court decisions regarding similar cases when the law books are inadequate to give a decision on some cases. Guidelines will be good and flexible, but there will be many difficulties when we try to act by them.

[Sculptor1]

The right to strike and protest have been restricted by the UK government. This alone is a reason to brake a law.

There is no right to strike under UK law. However, under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their interests. This right can be restricted by law, but only so far as is necessary in a democratic society, e.g. for the protection of security or public safety, or the prevention of crime. Violent protest is not protected.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/is-ther ... in-the-uk/

Everyone has the right to peaceful protest. While there is no specific right in law, it is enshrined in the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, protected respectively under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights, which was directly incorporated into domestic British law by the Human Rights Act.

Limitations to the right to protest in England and Wales were set out in the Public Order Act 1986 and this year in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC). There is also a common law offence of breach of the peace, and an offence of the same name exists separately in Scotland, where it is also a statutory offence under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. Northern Ireland has its own legislation governing protests – the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which includes conditions that can be imposed on public processions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -in-the-uk

Please correct me if I am wrong. I understand that you are unhappy about the limitations for striking and protesting. But I think these things should have some limits for the betterment of the general public. What do you say?

I say that not having a formal right to strike is not the same as being denied or having that right restricted.
The right exists in the absence of any law to restrict.
Since the absence of a law does not imply a lack of natural right.
You objection is pedantic and not relevant.

Having no law to restrict something does not imply that we have the right to do that.

Have you not heard of natural rights?
If you want to claim that a person does not have a natural right to strike you are effectively claiming that an authority has to right to enforced labour.

I am not a law expert. But I think that there is no law restricting going nude to public places.

Actually there is.

But that does not give anyone the right to do so.

Whether they have a natural right to do so has nothing to do with the law.

And if you do so, the law enforcing authorities will take away you under laws like disturbing the public. And the same applies to striking and protests as well. Even though there were no laws restricting especially the strikes and protests, the law enforcing authorities will have abundant ways and means to interrupt such things using other rules and laws in the law books.

I think you might want to stand back and think more carefully about the differences between law and right.

[Sculptor1]

The big question is harm to whom or to what.
Many laws are codified to protect the interests of the rulers or the state, often to the detriment of the people.

I am not very sure about that. Maybe that was the practice in the ancient era in which the kings and the land owners ruled the majority. But nowadays I think the rules are made for the betterment of the society. And in the occasions in which the rules are in favor of the rulers instead of the society, people go on and change them. I am not stating that this is a perfect world. But the society and the less privileged ones have a value for their voice nowadays more than what it had in the past.

You are laughably wrong here and you are assuming that democracy is effective.

Democracy may not effective as it could have been. But to compare the era with democracy with the era without democracy, we should have lived in that previous era, which I assume that neither you nor me have done. But from the history lessons that I have learned (I know that you are an expert in history compared to me, and I think you may have heard these too), I know that there was far less democracy under the autocratic leaders. So I think we should understand and appreciate what we are having in our hands before demanding for more and changes.

You might want to look at some anthropology. The era without democracy; customary beliefs did more to protect the group, that the powerful individuals within it.
For the vast majority of human history we have lived without democracy, but with custom and tradition, where "law" was about praxis and not threat of violence, which we "enjoy" today.

[Pattern-chaser]

Let's take an incident in which a beggar is being killed by someone. The beggar had no family and no one else was harmed by the action. Whether the action was just or unjust remains as a question. But the state will file a case and look for the murderer since the action is taken as an act against the government.

The beggar was harmed! This would seem to make the killing unjust, wouldn't it?

Yes, the beggar was harmed. But he is already dead and there is no more a victim of that unjust. So whether it is just or unjust, there is no post event affect.

Are you really saying that murder is not — cannot be — a crime, because the victim cannot stand up in a court to accuse their killer? Or because the injustice somehow fades away with the victim's death?

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, rules should be guidelines. But the danger of that is, we humans easily break the existing rules. So there will not be any need to even think about what might happen to guidelines. A clever lawyer can reduce the punishment of his client who is a known serial killer, while we have a set of rules which are written in books. Imagine what will happen if all those were guidelines.

Yes, let's imagine. The clever lawyer will have no loopholes to use to find his guilty client innocent. Such lawyers wrestle with the law, as it is written — sometimes even down to the interpretation of a single word — to find a way for their guilty clients to avoid justice. If these laws were simply guidelines in the administration of justice, the killer in your example would surely be removed from circulation, to a place where they can harm no more innocents.

So yes, let's imagine.