Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

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

I don't think it needs to even be extrodinary. A little kid runs out in the street. So, you run out after, jaywalking (which is a minor crime) and pull the kid off the street.

You can argue this in court (my first example never making it to court) and it would be a necessity defense.

Helping runaway slaves looks peachy in hindsight (and to many at the time).

There can be cases where some think it was wrong despite the intentions. And others think it was justified.

Dostoyevsky was not argument that Raskolnikov's actions were justified, though the quote was.

Maybe Dostoevsky did not argue on the point that you mentioned. But his story may have made the readers do that for him.

I agree with your initial argument. Yes the intention matters. But the action should have been proportionate as well as justifiable as well.

Sometimes the crime can be 'doing nothing' when you had to do something. But there are occasions in which you can be found guilty even if your intentions were true. An example for such a scenario is a doctor being guilty for violating guidelines in order try an unorthodox way to save a patient's life. If the life was saved the doctor will be a hero, and if he fails then he will have to face the consequences for breaking the laid down rules.

[Sushan]

There was a case in the British News about 35 years ago.

A couple of men were on trial because they had sprung a guy out of gaol. Clearly assisting a prison break is illegal.
The judge completely acquitted them on the grounds that the man they freed was later found innocent of the crime he was incarcerated for.

There crime was justified on grounds of truth. Sorry cant find he details.

The case of the Tolpuddle Martyrs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle ... sentencing
1834.
6 men who had formed a union were transported to Australia for "swearing an illegal oath" to join a Friendly Society in protest refusing to accept a pay cut from 10s to 7s per week.
They spent 3 plus years at hard labour on the other side of the world. Yet after mass protests and 800k (an incredible figure for the time) signatures were eventually pardoned and returned to England.

Where there are unjust laws there are justifiable crimes.

The first example that you mentioned reminded me of the old TV series, 'Prison Break'. In that also the younger brother breaks the older one out of prison who was charged wrongly. But it was not taken as a act of justice or a correct one until both the brothers were pardoned later. Seemingly the laws, the systematic approaches, and justice do not go hand in hand in many occasions.

The second one was clearly a good example to confirm the last sentence of your comment, and I agree with you on that.

[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 agree. It is even mentioned in the legal literature as well. But we should not forget the ability to make a crime look like an innocent act of self-defence, and people can be really cunning when they are about to get the noose. And so can be the lawyers

[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.

[GE Morton]

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.

A "crime" is an act prohibited by law:

"Crime (noun):

"1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime

Killing in self-defense is not illegal, therefore not a crime.

There is, to be sure, a vernacular or metaphorical use of "crime," per which it just means any act judged (by someone) to be wrong or immoral.

[Moreno]

Maybe Dostoevsky did not argue on the point that you mentioned. But his story may have made the readers do that for him.

I can't see how. Yes, the murderer justifies his crime that way, but the moment he has committed it he enters a long, long period of confusion, guilt and horror at his crime. It is a large, central portion of the book, how he is tortured by the crime and his own sick idea. The book is specifically and in a long drawn out manner saying that that idea is false to the core. Dostoyevsky was fundamentally Christian, loathed the Nietzscheist ideas that the anti-hero of the book is spouting to justify his selfish crime, and the character himself comes to realize how false those ideas are in the book. We watch his pain and suffering - on an emotional level - about committing those crimes lead to him giving those ideas up.

[LuckyR]

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).

[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.

[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).

[LuckyR]

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.

[Sushan]

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.

A "crime" is an act prohibited by law:

"Crime (noun):

"1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime

Killing in self-defense is not illegal, therefore not a crime.

There is, to be sure, a vernacular or metaphorical use of "crime," per which it just means any act judged (by someone) to be wrong or immoral.

Well, the link you gave gives away the following definitions as well.

1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government
especially : a gross violation of law
2: a grave offense especially against morality
3: criminal activity
efforts to fight crime
4: something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful
It's a crime to waste good food.

If we consider the second definition, then the act can be deemed as a crime if it was against morality. Since it says nothing about the motive or the intention, I think the act per se can be marked as a crime despite the motive or the intent. The motive is to be considered when the law enforcement comes into the play. But still, the act of self defense will be a crime if it is against morality, but the person will not be sent to gallows since the motive was not violent or criminal. I think these are two different things.

[Sushan]

Maybe Dostoevsky did not argue on the point that you mentioned. But his story may have made the readers do that for him.

I can't see how. Yes, the murderer justifies his crime that way, but the moment he has committed it he enters a long, long period of confusion, guilt and horror at his crime. It is a large, central portion of the book, how he is tortured by the crime and his own sick idea. The book is specifically and in a long drawn out manner saying that that idea is false to the core. Dostoyevsky was fundamentally Christian, loathed the Nietzscheist ideas that the anti-hero of the book is spouting to justify his selfish crime, and the character himself comes to realize how false those ideas are in the book. We watch his pain and suffering - on an emotional level - about committing those crimes lead to him giving those ideas up.

I agree. The mental torture that the murderer underwent was the core of the book. He initially had the idea of murdering the pawn broker woman to achieve his goals by getting her wealth, but then he saw the immorality of his action. Ultimately he confessed of his crime even though he was totally out of the list of suspects. So, yes, Dostoevsky had been clear about his vison. But when it comes to literature, it is the reader who defines the story but not the author. So I think the topic of presence of justifiable crimes which may lead to higher achievements is open for discussion.

[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).

Quite true. And I think that is why lawyers exist. If everything was clear cut in the law books, then there will be nothing to argue upon whether the accused is guilty or not, and the lawyers will remain jobless. But as there are associated factors like motive and intent that have a great impact when it comes to deciding whether the accused is guilty of the crime, and deciding on the severity of the punishment, it is not quite easy to determine whether a crime is justifiable or not. Ultimately at most of the times the decision depends on the ability of the lawyer.

[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?

[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.