Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, my brother and I were having a discussion a while ago, about how we live in a society where the only real crime is getting caught. At first, we were talking about how kids these days get away with everything until they get caught. Examples being a guy goes out drinking with his sports buddies (In high school, mind), they all have a good time, but he gets busted, so everyone avoids him, even those he was drinking with, Or Pro Sports players who are loved by everyone, but then they get busted for roids and then they lose everything.

I was just wondering what everyones thoughts on the subject is. Or even if this is an isolated thing.

You are, I believe, referring to Commandment #11:

Thou shalt not get caught.

Usually, if a (sprts)guy goes out drinking underage with his mates - they ALL get busted - and the rest of the school laughs at them for getting caught (they then in turn all get done for "bullying".)

Many laws are punishments for doing something.
It's rarer to be punished for NOT doing something (but not impossible).

There's an element of truth to it.

For example, smoking weed is illegal, but if you don't go around shoving it in people's faces, law enforcement isn't worried about it. So in that respect, there are many crimes that are basically "don't do this in a way that I have to catch you for it."

Then there's other stuff you just can't do. Like eating a baby.

Wrong and Illegal are two different things. Something can be one without the other, and vice versa. A lot of it depends on whether you are a relativist or not, and to what degree.

There are plenty of illegal things that aren't really wrong. I don't think the cops want to go out of their way for those in general. If you are a dumbass in public smokin a joint in town square possibly scaring little old ladies with your activity then yeah you are a target. It's always the fething stoners who go on about the unfairness of drug laws and it kind of irks me. Look... If it is a CRIME it is a CRIME. Those are called RULES. You want to break them you run the risk of being judged 'wrong' for breaking the rules. Can't live with that? Don't break the damn RULES and you'll be fine, instead of fined. If you do it in your little domicile/whatever out of public eye that is your business... but i cant show up drunk on the step of the neighborhood bar and expect the cops to intervene with my staggering... if I showed up sober but with a J in my mouth I'd be facing charge, not the drunk tank... why? cuz that's the law... so don't show yer cahones where the law is involved. Rules are rules and that's all there is to it. I hate it too, that's why I just avoid cops and try not o break any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If a feth up like me can get away with doing every drug known to man at one time or another and avoid conflict with the law (mostly), despite it all, I dont see how stoners can be so worried about what is 'legal' or not. I think OIL SPLURTS should be illegal, I think Oliver North having his own TV show should be illegal, I think Martha Stewart should be illegal, and Paris Hilton should have spent her full term in the same damn cell block as everyone else... and I think it's illegal that any of that happened.. but I don't get to make that decision. They ALL got caught. They ALL got off too. All we can do is what's right. If you know it's against the law (not necessarity the 'right') just do it where it doesn't bother someone else and you should be okay. But yeah I never met a dope smoking hippie in a public park either, right?

chromedog wrote:You are, I believe, referring to Commandment #11:

Thou shalt not get caught.

Sigged.

Phryxis wrote:There's an element of truth to it.

For example, smoking weed is illegal, but if you don't go around shoving it in people's faces, law enforcement isn't worried about it. So in that respect, there are many crimes that are basically "don't do this in a way that I have to catch you for it."

Then there's other stuff you just can't do. Like eating a baby.

Eating babies is strictly frowned upon yes.

Would a Chaos marine or an Ork eat human babies?

Oi yuz lozey git wez dont eat no babiz, wez iz gud orkz

Im confused by this post a bit.

Do you mean like the catholic Pervert Priests fiddling with kids, then getting other members of the clergy to cover it up? That's certainly wrong.

But it only became known because it got leaked. Was it wrong when know one knew about it?

Im confused, so all i can do is shrug exasperatedly.

No. Wrong is wrong. That is the nature of right and wrong. Some offenses that are illegal (like recreactional drug use, beer in a public place, or banging a 17 yr old who wants it) are not necessarily 'wrong' so much as 'frowned upon' by people who consider themselves civilized. I think anyone with a sense of morality would agree that torturing little helpless animals for fun, murdering your roommate in his sleep, or stealing babies, or ech the list could go on a while... just some things are just universally wrong, not a matter of society's standards, it's just that morals exist. They are often confused with laws (hmmm. I'm 18, in the army, not allowed to have a beer, just allowed to kill people on command....) there are many discrepancies, but anyone who is not a sociopath should be able to realize what is actually a wrong thing to do. The rest is just excuses for legalities sake.

Is stealing a child from someone who is abusing it wrong?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Is stealing a child from someone who is abusing it wrong?

Again,this would fall into the illegal vs wrong debate.

Would it be "illegal" to steal a child from someone who is abusing it,well if the "someone" were the child's "legal" guardians, than yes..by law you have "kidnaped" the child,as there are no "formal charges" of abuse against the guardians.

Would it be "wrong", I personally don't think so.

Then I guess you and I are both sociopaths. After all, stealing a baby is always wrong, and only a sociopath wouldn't realise that.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Then I guess you and I are both sociopaths. After all, stealing a baby is always wrong, and only a sociopath wouldn't realise that.

I'm perfectly fine with disreguarding/breaking "laws" in favor of doing what I see as "right".

FITZZ wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Then I guess you and I are both sociopaths. After all, stealing a baby is always wrong, and only a sociopath wouldn't realise that.

I'm perfectly fine with disreguarding/breaking "laws" in favor of doing what I see as "right".

I agree. There was an incident of defensive homicide in my extended family nearly ten years ago that saved the lives of a mother and her three children from an abusive father; a killing that I'd gladly defend.

No, I'm not going into details. I might agree with it, but it's still no fun to talk about on a public forum.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

"JUST DONT DO BAD THINGS" shall be the whole of the law. I'm totally with Fitzz on this. If it prevents further harm to harm the harmer, then it is in everybodys interest. Vigilanteism gets gak done where law cannot, because of protocol. That's why batman is a popular social archetype.

Yeah, mob justice has never resulted in lynching an innocent.

It's always good to know that molesting children is fine as long as one doesn't get caught.

Shaman wrote:

What? It doesn't really matter if it is wrong or it is right, it only matters if you get caught. That is the point yes?

Albatross wrote:Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Thelema

Slarg232 wrote:Well, my brother and I were having a discussion a while ago, about how we live in a society where the only real crime is getting caught.

Please explain how a society might work in which people were punished for things they hadn't been caught for.

sebster wrote:Please explain how a society might work in which people were punished for things they hadn't been caught for.

Come to the U.S. and be caught poor, in the wrong place at the wrong nationality, or just be the unknown stranger that is poor. Basically a lot of things that begin with being poor and not having connections. Then you'll see how a society works in which people are punished for things they hadn't bee caught for.

focusedfire wrote:

sebster wrote:Please explain how a society might work in which people were punished for things they hadn't been caught for.

Come to the U.S. and be caught poor, in the wrong place at the wrong nationality, or just be the unknown stranger that is poor. Basically a lot of things that begin with being poor and not having connections. Then you'll see how a society works in which people are punished for things they hadn't bee caught for.

Sure, if we expand out 'punished' to something beyond the actual definition of 'punished' and well beyond the considerations of law and order, but I don't think that was the OP's point at all.

FITZZ wrote:

Albatross wrote:Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Thelema

Yup, just putting it there because I thought it was relevant. I don't necessarily believe in total anarchy, strangely enough....

Well an ideal society would police itself. For instance, we do not do bad things because we know they are bad things. Some folks just don't get that I guess and that's why cops exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is a matter of good and evil rather than law and anarchy. People break laws all the time for understandable reasons, when the law is often ambiguous or unfair or irrelevant to the situation.
Not a single person here can say they always do what they were told, no matter who told them.
To that end, breaking the law is not necessarily bad. I think the issue is more with what kind of laws get broken. There are victimless 'crimes' and there are crimes with victims.
However they don't commit acts of evil while doing so. Someone who voluntarily smokes a bong knowing it is against the law, but also knowing it is causing no harm, is not making a consciously evil choice, just a consciously careless one. As in:" I don't care if it's illegal". Kidnapping someone or raping someone or killing someone are entirely different cup of tea. Anything you have to lie to the cops about is probably a sign that you are an evil donkey-cave, because they don't care if you smoked a bong, they certainly do care if you raped a kid.

Guitardian wrote:Anything you have to lie to the cops about is probably a sign that you are an evil donkey-cave, because they don't care if you smoked a bong, they certainly do care if you raped a kid.

COP : "Hey kid, did you just smoke a bong?"
KID : "No Sir, most definitely not" *puffs smoke*

Sorry i couldn't help it. But you are right, mostly. However, in some communist states (Romania before 1988 for instance), the police cared about EVERYTHING, litterally. There were many people having detailed files of what they eat, when, where, with who, etc. etc. And if called for a "discussion" and asked if you spoke bad about the great leader of our great republic, of course you said no, even if you did. That wouldn't make you an donkey-cave.

Now, you might say that there is a difference between democratic states police and communist states police. Yes there is, but mostly they did exactly the same. Catching villains, rapists and killers. Taking interest in the opposition of the government is the only thing that stood them apart

@Guitardian - Well, even smoking pot isn't a victimless crime, depending on how far down the rabbit-hole you want to go. You buy pot from a dealer, the dealer buys it from a supplier, the supplier buys it from a bigger supplier, the bigger supplier owns (in this country) empty houses in which vietnamese people are forced to live and 'farm' the weed, often being paid only in meagre food rations. They are basically slaves, similar to people-trafficking in the sex trade. That's not to mention the conditions people are forced to work under in thirld world drug labs/plants.

Doesn't stop me getting high though.