Rethinking 'criminal' and 'law abiding'

[zahc]

Is it time to stop appealing to the doctrine of 'law abiding'? Is it time to stop denouncing 'criminals'?

Without getting too Randian, we are at the point where everyone breaks the law. There now needs to be a disconnect between 'criminal' and 'bad', now that there are some heavy-duty crimes that are completely victimless.

The simplistic ideal of 'law abiding' doesn't seem to fit anymore. I hear people all the time who simultaneously insist that immoral laws are to be broken, while denouncing the criminal and upholding the law abiding. All that it takes to make you a criminal is some legislative action. That's it. Will you be different when that happens? In any case you will be a criminal, if you aren't already.

This dissonance results from the kneejerk reaction that criminal=bad and legal=good. This association needs to die. We need to speak as if there is no connection between 'legal' and 'good/right/safe/honorable' and between 'criminal' and 'bad/wrong/scary'. Perhaps substituting 'lawful' for 'legal' and 'violent/dishonest etc' for 'criminal' would be a good first step.

We can only appeal to the ideal of 'law abiding gun owners' to a certain point. All it takes to be a criminal is a law to be passed that is past the line you are willing to compromise to. When that time comes you might upset to find yourself with a new label with wholly negative connotations.

 

[TallPine]

I avoid the term "law abiding"

I prefer "peaceful", "decent", "honest" (...etc) citizens.

 

[Kacerdias]

I can't speak for the rest of the board, but....

I use the word "criminal" not in the context of petty misdemeanors but more to describe the mindset of one who cares nothing for the basic sovereign rights of others and one who will violate those rights in order to further one's own lust, entertainment, or greed - regardless of whether such acts are immoral or illegal. I don't concider the guy stopped for speeding or jaywalking to be a "criminal" even though he broke a law. A "criminal" doesn't need to be violent, just willing to take another's life, liberty, or property without cause or permission.

Make sense?

 

[deadin]

I tend to equate "law abiding" to a state of mind. It's where one really doesn't intentionally break the law or rules. The other, where one knows better, but really doesn't care if they break "minor" rules, I think of as "law baiting". My only problem with this attitude are those, when the law rises to their bait, cry like little babies that they are being singled out and picked on.

 

[zahc]

I use the word "criminal" not in the context of petty misdemeanors but more to describe the mindset of one who cares nothing for the basic sovereign rights of others and one who will violate those rights in order to further one's own lust, entertainment, or greed

What I'm saying is that that usage becomes more and more inappropriate as we devolve from a nation of laws to a nation of lawyers and courts and feelgood legislation. I think people should avoid painting with too big of a brush.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Excellent topic, zahc. I'll have to think on this more, but off the top of my head, I think deadin is dead on.

 

[Kacerdias]

You probably have a point, but I don't see the mindset changing anytime soon. I'll continue to use "criminal" to describe muggers and rapists and "law abiding" to describe most of the general populace. One can still be "law abiding" and unintentionally violate several petty ordinances. As Deadin stated, it's more that someone is trying to abide by the law in a good faith effort. But I do understand what you're saying.

 

[TallPine]

the mindset of one who cares nothing for the basic sovereign rights of others and one who will violate those rights in order to further one's own lust, entertainment, or greed - regardless of whether such acts are immoral or illegal.

Often, such moral do-good busybodies will use the law to violate other's rights

The "Non[Zero] Aggression Principle" and the "Golden Rule" pretty much cover it for me.

 

[zahc]

You say that you use criminal as a negative word. So do you deserve the label 'criminal' if you violate not some petty ordinances, but something more illegal? And what if it's not unintentional?

If you commit a felony/break a law, you are a criminal, by definition. That is why we have to divorce the concept of criminal from bad/evil.

There are also ways in which you can, while abiding by the law, or in order to abide by the law, do evil. Those who rounded up jews for execution in Germany were being completely law abiding, and those that turned jews in for execution were abiding by the law. This is why we need to divorce the term 'law abiding' from 'good/honest/righteous'.

There will come a time, if there hasn't already, when the righteous will be criminals instead of the law abiders. Rosa Parks was a criminal. Those in our government who make and enforce unjust laws are 'good law-abiding citizens'.

I'm saying that we have to be careful because we can appeal to being law-abiding only as long as we are willing to actually be law-abiding. There may come a time when 'law abiding gun owner' is an oxymoron, as 'law abiding user of marijuana' or 'law abiding owner of an M16' is an oxymoron now.

 

[DogBonz]

Good Topic

This is a discussion that I have had with many people and I have even been on different sides of the argument. The thing is that each and every law is not always “legal”, never mind just, and that can even change depending on the period in history. A few of the examples that we can look at are:

The forceful removing of Native Americans from their lands, Prohibition, holding Japanese Americans in camps, the killing of Jews in Nazi Germany, etc.

All of these things were “lawful” at the time, but they were not “legal”, nor were they just or right, just as many of the laws on the books now in many countries are not just.

So, what do you do? Do you break the law and become a “criminal”? Do you obey and disregard your principals and ignore what you feel is “right”? I think that for most of us that answer is based on a sliding scale of how strong our convictions (moral, not criminal) are, weighed against the penalties. Let’s face it, how many of us would speed if the penalty was a year in prison for every MPH over the speed limit? For $50, however, many of us take the chance of getting caught almost every day. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have no moral convictions about speed limits, it just makes a good example because most, if not all of us have broken a speed limit… even if only by accident.

 

[cracked butt]

The simplistic ideal of 'law abiding' doesn't seem to fit anymore. I hear people all the time who simultaneously insist that immoral laws are to be broken, while denouncing the criminal and upholding the law abiding. All that it takes to make you a criminal is some legislative action. That's it. Will you be different when that happens? In any case you will be a criminal, if you aren't already.

This dissonance results from the kneejerk reaction that criminal=bad and legal=good. This association needs to die. We need to speak as if there is no connection between 'legal' and 'good/right/safe/honorable' and between 'criminal' and 'bad/wrong/scary'. Perhaps substituting 'lawful' for 'legal' and 'violent/dishonest etc' for 'criminal' would be a good first step.

We can only appeal to the ideal of 'law abiding gun owners' to a certain point. All it takes to be a criminal is a law to be passed that is past the line you are willing to compromise to. When that time comes you might upset to find yourself with a new label with wholly negative connotations.

I cannot agree more. There are plenty of upstanding honest citizens who break gun laws every day in order to prepare to or protect themselves from the scum around them. People might not want to talk about such a taboo subject, but everyone wants to come home to their families safely at the end of the day, whether they have to break minor or even severe laws or not. Included among this crowd are people who are entrusted to enforce the laws.

 

[Mr. James]

I've reached the same impasse. When the law says one is a good citizen standing on one side of the street, but becomes a felon simply by crossing the street (such as by carrying a concealed weapon into a victim disarmament zone), what is the citizen to make of that? What changed in that stroll across the street in the citizen's morality, make-up or disposition?

When I drive across any of the Potomac River bridges, the law deems that this once "law-abiding" citizen is now the worst sort of criminal - illegally carrying a concealed handgun. What happened to me at the mid-point of that bridge span?

Not sure of the answer, since I'm no fan of anarchy, and having each of us define legality in that fashion is simply endorsing anarchy, but one unfortunate consequence of arbitrary lawmaking is summed up here:

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat

 

[mmike87]

"Law Abiding" is a term the government uses to describe subjects who do whatever they are told by people in "authority."

The Founding Fathers were all criminals by definition.

Whenever a person uses the term "law abiding" they are either:

a) A liar
b) A sheep

You're right - "law abiding" does not indicate "good" or "decent." It many states it was against the law for decades for a white person to marry a black person. If you did so, you were a criminal. I think (hope) most of of would agree that folks should be able to marry people of any race without government interference. Were the folks that engaged in the marriages bad people? They were certainly criminals. But "bad" - not necessarily.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Mr. James,

The right thing varies from place to place.

The law is first and foremost not about right and wrong in a moral sense. It is about control and power. The state has an absolute monopoly on the use of force and even the slightest hint of you being able to resist that monopoly is seen as a threat.

This is why the founding fathers included the second amendment. To give the people the ultimate ability to throw off the yolk of tyrannical government (for a second time) if necessary.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed"

THAT IS THE LAW. Anything short of resending it by a two thirds vote of the states (the way prohibition was ended) is indeed an infringement of that right.

OS

 

[walking arsenal]

Again, Excellent topic.

The way i see it Law abiding is defined by those who make law. When those who make law are no longer "good" then you can either be good or law abiding. Not both.

 

[geekWithA.45]

It bears well to remind oneself of the difference between that which is lawful, and that which is right. (Implicit in this is to ponder the root issue of what is right, what is wrong, and why)

They will never perfectly match, but the degree to which they diverge tells us much.

Not all infractions of the law are criminal.

On one side of the spectrum, we should perhaps consider "criminal sociopathy" as a description, and on the other, hmmm...now THIS is interesting: the dictionary lists no antonym of sociopath..."decent humanity"

 

[ZeSpectre]

I tend to talk in terms of civic responsibility vs antisocial (anticivic?) behavior but I find this a very interesting thread and a topic for some further though on my part before I can really comment.

 

[lacoochee]

The difference between "law abiding" and "criminal" really is subjective and completely dependent on the biases of the observer. Philosophically speaking at least when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, I've always thought of "criminals" as those elements of our society who actively seek to hurt others during the commission of their crime. But in thinking about it, that is really an inadequate definition. Who defines what the harm is and how much was intentional?

I am really starting ascribe to the theory that once you have paid your debt to society via involuntary service or incarceration that you should be made "whole" again upon release. That of course presupposes that the debt paid truly did equal the hurt caused, which is currently largely not the case. So in that world murderers would never be released or would be dead, rapists would never be given parole without consent of the raped, etc..

Also, worth mentioning in relationship to the act of a citizen becoming a criminal, is the question of whether or not after 200 years of passing new laws and repealing almost none, is it possible at this point in our country's history to remain a non-criminal?

I have sped...I have raised my voice to my wife...I have spanked my little boy after he essentially tries to unknowingly kill himself...I had a beer before I was 21...I built a giant beer mug (Mas) pyramid with the help of friends in the Hofbrau House and it was knocked over resulting in a lot of damage, I am sure I am not welcome to this day...the list goes on and many of these acts would define me as a criminal in more than one place and in more than one persons eyes.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I'm with TallPine: "peaceable" is the word I use most to describe decent, upstanding folks. If those same folks do not abide by immoral laws, yet harm no one, I will give them my support. Peaceful might imply pacifism, a thief who will not tell a lie could be deemed 'honest', and 'decent' just has such a depressing tone...

Therefore, "peaceable" (inclined or disposed to peace; promoting calm) seems most apt - I am much inclined towards peace and would very much like to be left alone as long as I do no harm to another person. However, if some evil person were to bring violence down upon me or mine, I'd like to believe that I would be capable of meeting and defeating that threat with force of my own.


As it is a nice complement to the original poster's train of thought, I'd like to point out that I've taken a liking to an applicable saying by Frederic Bastiat: "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."

 

[Art Eatman]

I'd bet that public usage of "law-abiding" and "criminal" includes intent. Any effort to make a change is doomed to failure.

The way things are now, we have Crime Against Property; we have Crime Against Person, and we have Crime Against Government. Most folks get along just fine with the first two. Elasticity enters the picture with the third.

, Art

 

[Art Eatman]

Regardless of our opinions as to suitability, the public usage includes intent. Any effort to change that usage is doomed to failure.

AS it is, we have three categories of law: Crime against person, crime against property, and crime against government. Most people get along fine with the first two, and don't intentionally break laws against theft or violence.

Elasticity of conscience enters the picture with the third, however.

Art

 

[209]

This is a good concept. It should stay here and be open for discussion.

AR-15.
Glock 19.
1911 Colt.

Just making sure we include guns in the discussion.

I think the difference should be the intent of the crime.

I submit these examples:

You have a CCW. You are "law-abiding". You happen into a non-gun area. You are not there for nefarious reasons. You are not a criminal. Unfortunately, we have all of these "trigger words" so misused by the media. "He was carrying a gun"!

Now, you are a "criminal".

Those are the kinds of incidents we have to address. We have to actually look at the intent. I know that's hard, but we have to.

Case in point:

I use my range bag as carry-on luggage when I fly somewhere. Although, I empty it, one round happens to get stuck in a fold or pleat. I'm careless. I'm not a criminal. That happened to me.

 

[Art Eatman]

209, that's "Crime against government."

 

[obxned]

I think I will continue to use the terms "law abiding" and "criminal", since most people here seem to know what I mean by them.

 

[bogie]

Just as soon as someone uses the term "law abiding" there's a reaction...

Just about media-conditioned individual in the room mentally says "uh oh... another gun nut..." and their brain slams closed.

So don't use the damn term.

Personally, I think that ordinary citizens, like you and me, oughta be able to protect themselves from crooks without having to wait 20 minutes for the cops to show up.