When someone, say, steals something, they have broken the law against stealing. But, they have also demonstrated contempt for the law. Should that not also be a criminal offence?
In general, when someone breaks a law, should they not, in addition to being charged with the specific offence, also be charged with the general offence of breaking the law?
2006-07-31 12:37:55 · 12 answers · asked by brucebirdfield 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I should have added that I don't think it would make sense to charge someone with the general offence of 'breaking the law' until they had been found guilty of a specific offence.
By the way, I'm not actually proposing that there should be a law against breaking the law. I'm just running the idea up the flagpole to see who lobs a grenade at the flagpole and whether their grenade has any explosive in it.
2006-07-31 14:48:08 · update #1
Because there would be no practical advantage to doing so.
You would be simply making each crime into two crimes.
Anything that could be accomplished by odling that could be accomplished without doing it. For example sentences could be increased for the original crime, if that were desirable.
So since there is no practical advantage to making each crime into two crimes, its not done.
2006-07-31 12:46:37 · answer #1 · answered by lapaul 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you are confused. Let me ask you, what is the difference between "Breaking the law" and "Criminal Offence"? The law is broken by performing some criminal acts like stealing or assaulting or driving drunk or killing someone etc with violation of the principals of Law. Therefore, it is said that someone has committed a crime and that itself is breaking the law. This is why the person is charged for his one mistake as whole but there is no seperate charges like what you think.
2006-07-31 13:08:43 · answer #2 · answered by Ethan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because it would just be another stupid thing that lawyers would get paid EVEN more money for. Plus, if you do something horrible enough, ur gonna pay the appropriate sentence if you're found guilty. I think it'd suck to have more time added just cuz u "broke the law." Also, some1 or many people would have to write out more penalties for each and every situation of breaking a law, because i doubt the argument of "he 'broke the law'" would hold up in court. it would be swatted aside by an argument of "what law?" basically it'd be a hassle and i think u r just spiteful towards people who mess up, intentionally or otherwise.
2006-07-31 12:46:06 · answer #3 · answered by xgreedx123 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This would open a Pandora's box to double (triple) jeopardy. If someone "broke the law" by speeding, then that driver would face two charges for one act. I'm against laws that allow a single criminal or civil act to place someone in double jeopardy. If that trend continued, then it would be an offense to simply talk about breaking the law, which could be construed as conspiracy, which would be breaking the law...ooops...another broken law!....oh yea, and by breaking the law, you've ....you guessed it....Broken the Law!
2006-07-31 14:16:00 · answer #4 · answered by nitr0bike 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To protect people from the state - Being arrested for "breaking the law", with no specific stated law being cited as having been broken is one of the reasons people fled Europe to create a new country during 1600's.
Having written laws allows people to know, before hand, what their legal boundaries are.
2006-07-31 12:47:50 · answer #5 · answered by SwampDog 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The offenses are broken down in several ways and combined add up to the overall offense of breaking the law. Just by virtue of being charged with a crime you have already been acknowledged to have broken a law.
2006-07-31 12:42:38 · answer #6 · answered by charmingchatty 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This scheme will lead to a "catch 22" situation where will get infinite sentence for any crime.
Say our penal code looks like this:
1. Theft -- 2 years in jail
2. ...
3....etc etc etc
100. Braking any law in this code -- 1 year in jail
Say Person A steals 200$. So, we apply section 1 he gets 2 years. Then we apply section 100 for braking section 1, he gets another year.
NOW we apply section 100 for braking section 100! another year,
But wait a second, you have just broke 100 again! so apply 100 again, etc etc etc.
Infinite sentence!!!
2006-07-31 17:29:40 · answer #7 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why? That would seem to just add paperwork, more time and money to run the justice system, and more loopholes for the perp to get off.
2006-07-31 12:41:38 · answer #8 · answered by pizzagirl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I see what you mean. Is breaking the law illegal? I don't know. I've never thought of it that way.
2006-07-31 12:41:30 · answer #9 · answered by AC 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should be. But with our current prison situations we're already letting people out early. We can't afford to convinct people of more crimes and require they serve more time.
2006-07-31 12:45:51 · answer #10 · answered by justpucky 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋