Government and crime - (a clockwork orange related)

[Bugz]

Anyone who has read the book will know the issue it brings up re: crime and I want to open it up to the FHOT as I think it'd be rather interesting.

Say a government had the power to brain-wash/persuade every member of the public not to commit a crime, would you condone it?

On the one side, you would have a friendly, harmless, crime-free environment - yet on the other side, you have one of the fundamental human rights taken away - that to think and act for yourself.

The author of A Clockwork Orange believed that you should punish those who commit crimes but once you take away the ability for them to produce these crimes, you dehumanize them - which he believed was one of the greatest crimes of all.

Thoughts? Opinions?

 

[Laddey]

stfu

 

[old.Tohtori]

and I want to open it up to the FHOT, and then ignore all things said 'cause i'm a bit prissy that way, as I think it'd be rather interesting.

Fixed that for ya

And the answer is no, never, not in a million years. I'm free to do what i want, even if it involves bullwhips, muggins or robbing the crown jewels.

And so does anyone else. They have every right to rob me or do other harm, but i also hold the right to shoot them in the face.

 

[noblok]

And the answer is no, never, not in a million years. I'm free to do what i want, even if it involves bullwhips, muggins or robbing the crown jewels.

And so does anyone else. They have every right to rob me or do other harm, but i also hold the right to shoot them in the face.

So, you're an anarchist, then?

 

[Raven]

Just save money and execute all criminals (on a 3 strikes basis ofc)

 

[old.Tohtori]

So, you're an anarchist, then?

No, i'm a live and let liver live. Well, actually no, i try my darnest to kill it

I just think everyone should be the judge of their own actions, and as long as those actions don't harm others, they can live in peace and if they do harm others, be responsible of their actions aswell.

If any of these actions breaks the law, the law will handle it.

I condone vigilante justice too, but again, if that justice breaks the law, they are responsible for it too.

 

[Overdriven]

Do anarchists have social get togethers?

 

[noblok]

No, i'm a live and let liver live. Well, actually no, i try my darnest to kill it

I just think everyone should be the judge of their own actions, and as long as those actions don't harm others, they can live in peace and if they do harm others, be responsible of their actions aswell.

If any of these actions breaks the law, the law will handle it.

I condone vigilante justice too, but again, if that justice breaks the law, they are responsible for it too.

I assume then that the law's purpose is to punish people committing actions which harm people? Another question: are there unjust laws and if so how do they fit into that system?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I assume then that the law's purpose is to punish people committing actions which harm people? Another question: are there unjust laws and if so how do they fit into that system?

The law ain't just to punish, but to give basic guidelines if you will, and to make sure peoples rights are met. Just that they mostly are in the "don't do" form, but many are also "entitled to" form. Kinda like a parent telling adults how to behave.

About unjust laws, well, i guess so, but not my place to say really as i don't know the whole law. But surely there are some. If i hear about one, that clearly is unjust, i'd voice my concern of it.

How they fit into the system, well, i guess if the law was only to punish, it wouldn't.

 

[Lamp]

I'm reading A Clockwork Orange at the moment. I'll let you know when I've finished reading it.

 

[noblok]

The law ain't just to punish, but to give basic guidelines if you will, and to make sure peoples rights are met. Just that they mostly are in the "don't do" form, but many are also "entitled to" form. Kinda like a parent telling adults how to behave.

About unjust laws, well, i guess so, but not my place to say really as i don't know the whole law. But surely there are some. If i hear about one, that clearly is unjust, i'd voice my concern of it.

How they fit into the system, well, i guess if the law was only to punish, it wouldn't.

OK, what would people's rights be defined as? A loose definition will do, obviously.

I really meant more in principle, since you told people that they'd have to bear the consequences of their actions when breaking the law. If there are unjust laws, this means that people can be punished for doing something right. While I agree with accepting th punishment in the practical context of civil disobedience, I would still argue that since the law is unjust, it's unjust for them to be punished. If you get what I mean.

 

[old.Tohtori]

OK, what would people's rights be defined as? A loose definition will do, obviously.

I really meant more in principle, since you told people that they'd have to bear the consequences of their actions when breaking the law. If there are unjust laws, this means that people can be punished for doing something right. While I agree with accepting th punishment in the practical context of civil disobedience, I would still argue that since the law is unjust, it's unjust for them to be punished. If you get what I mean.

Well, i'm no law guy, as said, nor am i a politician, but i would define rights as basic things one is entitled to(like fair trial) and things that one can do/be without procecution or harassment(like be gay).

If laws are unjust, people will get unjustly judgedeek7 by them and as such, yes, those laws are not working for a system.

Really would need an example of an "unjust law" for clarification though as i can't think of one right now.

 

[Lamp]

(Rights have different meaning in different jurisdictions. In most civilised democracies your rights are enshrined in a Bill of Rights and upheld by courts of law. In countries like Zimbabwe you have the right to support Robert Mugabe and thats about it. All other rights reserved)

 

[noblok]

My mistake: I meant what those basic things one is entitled to do would be. In response to Lamp: I'm aware of that, but I mean what one's rights would be in old.Tohtori's ideal state.

An example of an unjust law would be for example the original post put into practice: a law which makes it mandatory to be pre-emptively brainwashed.

 

[Lamp]

Unjust from whose perspective ?

Isn't the State the all-knowing all-seeing omnipresent yet caring parent of its children ? Surely it knows whats best for its children and just like a father rebuking his child, administering punishment, while it may feel unjust in the short term, will ultimately teach the difference between right and wrong, and add character, impress upon the importance of duty to one self, to others, and to the State. In creating a better society the good of the individual must be secondary to the good of society as a whole.

 

[old.Tohtori]

My mistake: I meant what those basic things one is entitled to do would be. In response to Lamp: I'm aware of that, but I mean what one's rights would be in old.Tohtori's ideal state.

An example of an unjust law would be for example the original post put into practice: a law which makes it mandatory to be pre-emptively brainwashed.

The thing is, i don't have an "ideal" state as it would be as much as the government brainwashing me, fooling my true feelings and who i am.

I'd have to write a bill of rights(as said) or basic rights to get to my ideal place, and that's a bit much for this discussion and take a bit too long

As i said, unjust laws should not be in place, and if i find something unjust(ofcourse personal which comes from what I believe to be the best, not necessarily IS the best), i'll voice it andsee if i can change it.

 

[noblok]

Very well, I just wanted to know how to interpret "If any of these actions breaks the law, the law will handle it." It just seemed to give a carte blanche to any government to impose whatever rules they want. However, now you've cleared up that there are unjust laws and that they shouldn't be in place, that's no longer a feasible interpretation of what you said .

Then there's another question I've got, if you don't mind. From your second post one could deduce that you think it's perfectly OK to break the law as long as you take the punishment (last two sentences). Is this interpretation correct?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Very well, I just wanted to know how to interpret "If any of these actions breaks the law, the law will handle it." It just seemed to give a carte blanche to any government to impose whatever rules they want. However, now you've cleared up that there are unjust laws and that they shouldn't be in place, that's no longer a feasible interpretation of what you said .

Then there's another question I've got, if you don't mind. From your second post one could deduce that you think it's perfectly OK to break the law as long as you take the punishment (last two sentences). Is this interpretation correct?

Aye, sometimes you need to broaden these as often simple answers in forum form don't exactly explain a view

About the second question, don't mind at all, and i do have an answer. Gee-qiz, me with an answer, who would've thought...anyway...

I actually meant that people have the right to break the law, it doesn't mean they should. Freedom to break the law i guess, bit different now that i see it, but that's what i meant.

Free will to break the law, and if you get away with it, hey, good for you, but if you're caught, it's gonna hurt.

 

[noblok]

Does that mean you don't condemn someone who kills another person and manages to get away with it or do you just mean it shouldn't be made impossible for anyone to kill someone else? It's just that if the law is just (I assume you think a law prohibiting murder is just), I don't think anyone has a right to break said law. I don't however think that the law should try to remove every possibility of breaking the law, because then you'll end up with 'a clockwork orange' methods which is a greater evil (imo).

 

[old.Tohtori]

Does that mean you don't condemn someone who kills another person and manages to get away with it or do you just mean it shouldn't be made impossible for anyone to kill someone else? It's just that if the law is just (I assume you think a law prohibiting murder is just), I don't think anyone has a right to break said law. I don't however think that the law should try to remove every possibility of breaking the law, because then you'll end up with 'a clockwork orange' methods which is a greater evil (imo).

Oh no, i don't think it's nice and i do shake my finger at them and go "naughty boy/girl", but i respect the freedom to do so.

Law should be as is, a deterrant, said punishment for said action, but it should never stop people from choosing to do so.

 

[noblok]

Ah, then I believe it's just a difference in terminology (cf. the words in italics in my previous post) or at least only a minor difference in opinion. And this is why I'm not that fast to get into arguments any longer: at first I strongly disagreed with your post, but a couple of questions later it becomes apparent we hold (pretty much) the same opinion .