If we could make it impossible for people to commit crime, should we? Or would doing so deprive people of their human rights? [19]
All Responses
-
This is similar to something I've wondered about before. If it is impossible for a person to take an action that is less or other than good, are they actually good themselves?
-
People who are commuting crime are violating other peoples rights and the law
It's called crime for a reason -
-
CardinalMaximus's responses are protected.
Sierralass's responses are protected.
Don't make it impossible. That's entirely too Big Brother.
Given that some countries consider not voting for your everloving dictator a crime, I would say no.
Nope; the other side of a free society is that people are free to abuse the trust that society has in them.
I'm pretty sure police could lower the crime rate to next to zero by dragging 'suspicious' types out of their homes in the middle of the night and sending them off to some camp (or just shooting them). The end does not justify the means.
No, you should not make it impossible for people to commit a crime. And not just because free-will is a basic right, but because who's to say the law's always right? If breaking the law was illegal, things like the civil disobedience practiced in the Civil Rights movement would have been impossible.
backliketupac's responses are protected.
No we definitely shouldn't, it wouldn't only deprive people from their basic human rights, but also make life pointless and unhappy.
You would absolutely deprive people of the rights in your efforts to make it impossible to commit a crime. Btw, note I said efforts. So not only would you deprive people of their rights...you can not make it "impossible" for people to commit crime.
Kind of sounds a bit like what happens from "A Clockwork Orange", though even that movie has it's consequences when society punishes that person for the horrible crimes they did before they received treatment. Personally I just feel that hatred is simply something people have evolved with, is intervention the correct thing to do? There's a classic episode from the Original 60s Star Trek where Capt. Kirk gets split into two due to a horrible Transporter malfunction and all the good from him is in one person and all the hatred and ruthless is in the other, though what happens next is unusual cause for him to be Capt. he needs that ruthless in him in order to Capt. the ship due to his decision making, though the caring half of him is obviously there to suppress the dark side of him and I think the only way people can suppress their dark side is from strong will.
It would deprive rights, because there is no way possible to stop crime completely without taking away rights.
So no, anything that takes away even /more/ of our rights should /not/ be permitted.
TaliTalulla's responses are protected.
Loading...
