"Might Crimes" vs. "Real Crimes." What are your thoughts on the former?

[Roadkill Coyote]

Since DUI has been well covered, particularly by Messer Paw, the question remains how we determine what risks require these restrictions. Human judgement, reflected in a social concensus, is how we draw that line. Yes, we have certain inalienable rights, but inalienable or not, the framers spent a long time arguing about how to word their enunciation of those rights. Why did it take so long, and initiate arguments that resound to this day? Because where those rights end was not as obvious as some have maintained. It was a difficult, complex, and important subject then, and it is a difficult, complex, and important subject now.

The main differance between then and now is the changes in how our social concensus views risk, and harm. We, as a soceity, have a greater understanding of some risks and harms, and a greater fear of others. Obviously, through medical progress, we know more about the effects of alcohol, and therefor the attendant risks of operating dangerous machinery. Through research we know about harms done by chemical that would have gone unrecognized. In addition to the changes based upon understanding, our soceity has changed in how we veiw risk itself. There was a time when a road that only washed out occasionally would have been considered safe enough. Today, it would be considered malfeasance on the part of the local government. Much of the change in attitude has come because we are a wealthy society, we can afford to demand better roads and more protection.

So, the problem is sorting out those concensuses that have changed based upon fear, not understanding, and focusing our attention on remaking them. That's what the High Road is about, remaking social concensuses, the faulty ones that were based upon fear, about firearms.

Edited for clarity

 

[Telperion]

That was an excellent analogy BrokenPaw, and one that I agree with. However, many people view any private firearms ownership as putting them at risk without their consent. They assert their right to a FDR-esque "freedom from fear". How would you address this claim?

 

[jefnvk]

However, many people view any private firearms ownership as putting them at risk without their consent. They assert their right to a FDR-esque "freedom from fear". How would you address this claim?

I view lack of firearm ownership as putting ME at risk, as now I am defenseless. I want my freedom of fear, also. Now, you are just forcing someone to decide who's freedom is more important.

 

[Treylis]

All malum prohibitum/prior restraint laws are irrational and should not exist, particularly ones where the perpetrator and the victim are apparently one and the same, such as drug possession/etc.

 

[ctdonath]

Did this action violate anyone’s right to life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness? If the answer is “no,†it is not a crime.

If that's the limit, then RKBA for self-defense is pointless, and amounts to punishment not prevention.

Sometimes an individual or society must act to prevent harm. Unfortunately, the blissninnies have a really squishy view about what "preventing harm" entails.

The basic criteria is: ability, opportunity, jeopardy.
Does the individual have the ability to cause harm?
Does the individual have the opportunity to cause harm?
Does the individual's actions place anyone in jeopardy of harm?
If a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that the answer to all three questions is "yes", then it is reasonable and prudent to take steps to prevent likely/impending harm.

Re: drunk driving
Does the driver have the ability to cause harm? Yes: a ton of steel in motion is a tool for harm.
Does the driver have the opportunity to cause harm? Yes: a moving vehicle can go from "safe" to "dangerous" in a second with a flick of a wrist (or negligent lack thereof).
Does the driver's actions place anyone in jeopardy of harm? Yes: surrounded by rapidly-changing traffic, the drunk driver is unable to cope with rapidly-changing situations in a safe and timely manner.
A reasonable and prudent person would thus conclude that such a driver places the life/liberty/pursuit-of-happiness of others at undue and immediate danger, and steps may be taken (arrest) to stop the driver.

The ability/opporutnity/jeopardy situation then becomes legitimate crime (pre-crime, might-crime) when the perpetrator created the situation either deliberately or negligently. Even if nobody was harmed, the issue is that a reasonable and prudent person would expect that harm will likely ensue unless the person is stopped.

Pity there seems few reasonable and prudent people writing laws.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Hi, ho, there, ctdonath

Then, if I understand you correctly, it must be ok for me to shoot the next drunk driver I see.

'Cause, like you said

If a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that the answer to all three questions is "yes", then it is reasonable and prudent to take steps to prevent likely/impending harm.

Hey, that would slow down the drunk driving instances.

 

[mercedesrules]

A real crime has an injured, complaining victim. "Might" crimes do not.

I would prefer that a bold line be drawn between the two.

MR

 

[ctdonath]

How would you address "reckless endangerment" issues? Surely something falls in the "don't do that 'cuz someone will likely get killed" category.