Molon Labe
Member
When it comes to crime and punishment, I’ve always believed the following progression was the "rule":
1. A person commits a real crime, wherein the person infringed on someone else’s right to life, liberty, property, and/or pursuit of happiness.
2. Afterwards the person is punished for the crime.
Makes sense to me.
But it is my opinion society is not longer content on punishing someone after-the-fact for committing a real crime. Today we have might-crimes, also known as "pre-crimes." A might-crime is a "crime" wherein someone believes you might commit a real crime. Furthermore, depriving someone of life, liberty, property, and/or pursuit of happiness is not a prerequisite for a conviction; indeed, you can be arrested and convicted of a might-crime without depriving anyone of any rights.
One example of a might-crime is owning an unregistered full-auto weapon. I can only presume it's illegal because the government believes you might commit a crime with it. Furthermore, mere possession of such a rifle does not deprive anyone else of life, liberty, property, and/or pursuit of happiness, yet this matters not; you can still be arrested and convicted.
But it's not all black and white. Case in point: drunk driving. If I am pulled over and blow >0.08%, I will be arrested. Why? Because I might hurt someone, even though I had not hurt anyone up to that point, nor denied anyone else their inalienable rights. Like the full-auto example, this is obviously a might-crime, yet we all seem to agree that that it’s reasonable and warranted.
There are countless other examples of might-crimes. Just wondering what your thoughts were.
1. A person commits a real crime, wherein the person infringed on someone else’s right to life, liberty, property, and/or pursuit of happiness.
2. Afterwards the person is punished for the crime.
Makes sense to me.
But it is my opinion society is not longer content on punishing someone after-the-fact for committing a real crime. Today we have might-crimes, also known as "pre-crimes." A might-crime is a "crime" wherein someone believes you might commit a real crime. Furthermore, depriving someone of life, liberty, property, and/or pursuit of happiness is not a prerequisite for a conviction; indeed, you can be arrested and convicted of a might-crime without depriving anyone of any rights.
One example of a might-crime is owning an unregistered full-auto weapon. I can only presume it's illegal because the government believes you might commit a crime with it. Furthermore, mere possession of such a rifle does not deprive anyone else of life, liberty, property, and/or pursuit of happiness, yet this matters not; you can still be arrested and convicted.
But it's not all black and white. Case in point: drunk driving. If I am pulled over and blow >0.08%, I will be arrested. Why? Because I might hurt someone, even though I had not hurt anyone up to that point, nor denied anyone else their inalienable rights. Like the full-auto example, this is obviously a might-crime, yet we all seem to agree that that it’s reasonable and warranted.
There are countless other examples of might-crimes. Just wondering what your thoughts were.