is it right to punish somebody for what they're GOING to do, but haven't YET done...?
2007-03-02 23:32:08 · 16 answers · asked by ? 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Just forget the entire legal system exists. I'm not taking about it in legal terms, I just mean think about the philosophical issues behind it. Basically trying to find a philosophical, intelligent answer to a stupid question - I'm just interested in people's opinions and moral/ethical views
2007-03-03 00:15:12 · update #1
Well how can you be sure that someone is definately going to do something if they haven't done it yet? Also a punishment implies a judgement - who are you to judge anyone, much less pre-judge someone?
It does depend on context e.g what is this person being punished for? Who is doing the punishing? What gives them the right to punish? Is there anyway you can better educate the person without punishing? What will the consequences of the punishment be? Will that make the person being punished a 'better' person for it? These are some of the questions I would seriously consider before being able to give an accurate answer.
2007-03-02 23:39:24 · answer #1 · answered by waggy 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
To do that we would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that is what they intended to do. Attempted murders for example are easy because they failed to carry out an action not to carry out a thought.
There can be no law against being tempted to do things or we would all be in prison.
If there is circumstantial evidence then the correct means of prevention is a restraining order.
2007-03-03 09:40:02 · answer #2 · answered by paulnewbyhq 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That could only possibly work if there were some sort of strange laws where people had to declare an intent. So, it's totally unrealistic and never gonna happen. Interesting question though.
2007-03-03 09:00:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would depend on whether their criminal act was inevitable or not. If there was a chance that you could intervene with their ability or desire to perform this act using your prior knowledge, they could be rehabilitated. If the event was fixed, you would be correct in detaining that person, particularly if they pose a long term threat. It would certainly be more moral to spare the innocent victim any pain.
2007-03-03 09:26:19 · answer #4 · answered by queenbee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not even Law Enforcement can do that. They have to file stay away orders even for men who state they are going to KILL their wives. THEN the man has to BREAK that stay away order in order for them to act. AND most often than not, Law Enforcement officials arrive TOO LATE to save the women.
Our Laws and our Law Enforcement are to Serve & Protect, but there are too many by-laws that detur them from be able to better enforce other laws. They WANT to save people from danger, harm and death, but the REALITY of it is that they cannot do so in many cases, due to their hands being tied by the laws which retard other laws.
If you THINK someone is going to commit an injustice (i.e. crime), you can do nothing unless he does that crime in reality. OR unless they have already been found GUILTY of that same crime at another point in time (i.e. sex offenders etc). Otherwise there would be FAR LESS crime, and I think our crime rate helps that to speak for itself.
Do I believe someone SHOULD be punished for a crime they have NOT committed?
"No" [Not generally speaking].
BUT ... I do believe there should be better laws to protect people as well as some laws changed in order to allow our Law Enforcement officials to truly HELP as they are suppose to be doing. Your and my tax dollars paying for it makes no difference in most cases either, this is why many of us should start trying to get bills passed in order to get them turned into Laws, to help people BEFORE a crime is committed. Then when it is committed? There will be help for those who truly need help, and TRUE justice for those who commit the crimes.
2007-03-03 08:09:22 · answer #5 · answered by Jewel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ah, "Minority Report"ish
In the secular couts, yes it is wrong. You can only perhaps hold them and give them a lesser charge for intent, but not actually commiting it. You see, say that Mr. Johnson said he was going to kill Mrs. Smith and you had all the evidence to show it. If you convict Johnson for "murder" then, when he is released, he could kill Mrs. Smith because you cannot charge someone for the same crime twice (except in cases of rape or thievery when you could indeed do it twice, but you cannot charge someone for killing another person twice)
2007-03-03 07:45:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends.
I saw a news show about a man who had just got out of prison for beating his wife. He was on the way to kill and torture her when he got pulled over by cops. He had in in trunk a rope, tons of needles, knives, razor blades etc. He said he collected these things and couldn't prove he was going to her house at all.
The courts had a hard time prosecuting him. They did but he may be out now....
†
2007-03-03 07:38:53 · answer #7 · answered by Jeanmarie 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes of course but it is within the discretion of the Court (civil) if that somebody be convicted of the offense which he was accused of. for example is the Attempted murder, Attempted robbery, Attempted Rape.
2007-03-03 07:42:43 · answer #8 · answered by Jesus M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dishing out punishment is taking God's place and therefore wrong.
2007-03-03 11:40:18 · answer #9 · answered by mesun1408 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. They arrest men on "To catch a predator" who have the intent of having sex with a minor.
2007-03-03 07:44:03 · answer #10 · answered by Misty 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋