A Late Good Morning Monday Birds!
ChatterBank6 mins ago
No best answer has yet been selected by El D. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Absolutely and categorically not!
Assuming we did not follow quapmoc's suggestion (which has impeccable logic, but I'm sure he wasn't actually proposing we do it!!), then I still would not want a society totally free of crime for the simple reason that I believe this would only be possible by
Given that I would not support any sort of Vanilla Sky style (or any other style) mind control/predictive scary stuff, that leaves option two. I've studied the economics of criminal law, and, sad as it is, there is such a thing as an "efficient level of crime". This is because, it is possible (in theory) to reach a margin where one more pound spent on crime prevention results in one less pound being lost by society as a result of crime. However, at the margins, this does not mean that there is no crime. When you consider the costs of crime prevention, it is simply logical to conclude that there will come a point when it would cost more to prevent a crime, than the crime itself would cost. e.g., you have a �10,000 car, and there's a 1 in 1000 chance of it being stolen in the next 3 years. You should therefore spend no more than �3,333 per year on guaranteeing that it would not be stolen. It costs more than that to have a policeman guarding it all day every day and night!
I realise theory and practice don't always turn out to be the same, but basically my argument is that it would simply be too expensive to have a society free of crime. I therefore would accept a level of crime in society (obviously lower than it is at the moment) - that would be an "efficient level of crime".
Hi Jan Bug, it wasn't taken as criticism by me so don't worry about it and you surely do not need to apologise for giving your honest opinion . I just read the posts again and It seems to be a straightforward discussion of the subject.
The only thing that worries me is that I tried to make my reply/comment as bland as possible and you still thought I was upset by your reply.
You should not assume that everybody here is as sensitive to comments as some people appear to be.
quapmoc - it's simply that after things that went on last week, I am very keen that my comments are not misunderstood. I thought it better to err on the side of caution - given that my intention wasn't to offend. Anyway, I see that you weren't offended, and no harm is done! :-)
I hope other's take El D up on this thread. Actually, El D - what's your view?! :-)
Would your scenario mean that it would not be possible to commit a crime however small in order to accomplish a greater good?
For example would I not be able to break the speed limit to get a heart attack victim to hospital? Could I commit criminat damage and breaking an entry to rescue a dog stuck in a house after it's owner was taken to hospital?
There are many more examples.
Not only that but peoples ideas of what a crime is can change - Murder's always been a crime but a few centuries ago I could've been sentenced to death for claiming to be an atheist.
I think this ide has been explored by a number of authors over the years - never seems to turn out well in practice.