Criminal Rights

[Peregrine]

If people might have guns in their house, then the thief will have to come into your house armed, or else he doesn't stand much of a chance.

 

But if both are armed, the defender has a massive advantage. Go wait in a corner of a room, gun aimed at the door. The criminal might get your stuff, but coming through that doorway is suicide. But the same can't be said for if the criminal has a gun and you don't. The range and power gives him a huge advantage, and gives you almost no way to survive if he feels like killing you.

And you ignore the other two possibilities. One, the thief might just find a different way of getting the money, and skip breaking in entirely. Two, the thief might be very careful to pick a house where nobody is home. Which is just fine with me... items can be replaced, my life can't.

 

Also, he is much more likely to attack people he encounters, because they might be armed, so they are a potential threat to him.

 

Except that in that situation, the defender has a huge advantage. If someone tried to break into my house, and I actually had time to get to my gun, I'd bet a lot that I'd be the one left alive at the end. One, I know the house. Two, they I the advantage of cover, assuming they choose to defend their lives and not their posessions. I can think of plenty of places in my house that I could use for that... waiting somewhere for (and if) the intruder to come to my ready gun. Again, I might lose some money for doing it, but I'll gladly accept that for a near-definite chance of survival.

 

Now lets consider the alternative, part I. A thief without a gun can still have a knife, or baseball bat, or whatever. All of these weapons depend on strength, unlike a gun... so the defender might be at a huge disadvantage. And all of these weapons require the defender to get close to the thief, and give them the opportunity to counterattack. And you still have to trust the thief not to try to kill you anyway, but now there's a lot less you can do to stop him.

 

Alternative, part II. The thief decides not to carry a weapon at all. Now I wish everyone was that stupid.... Even if I don't have a gun I'm going to grab a baseball bat or kitchen knife before coming after the intruder. So any sane thief is going to carry at least some form of weapon, putting you in the situation above.

 

Over here thiefs are almost always unarmed, the only exception being armed robbers that go after banks and petrol stations. They get the stuff they want (which is usually insured), and no-one gets hurt.

 

In an ideal world, maybe. But I'd rather trust an AK-47 than a thief's kindness.

[Shakkara]

You don't get it, do you? Because you try to hide and defend yourself, thieves are attacking and killing people. Thieves don't kill people for fun. Over here they don't kill at all, just threaten and take your stuff. Why would they want to kill people? If they do that then it gets in the news and they have every cop in the province after them! There is no need to come up with tactical scenarios. Thieves don't hurt people, unless they are a threat. Oh and using violence is a crime, even against thieves, and rightly so! Just because someone else does it gives you no right to do it yourself.

[Peregrine]

Over here they don't kill at all, just threaten and take your stuff.

 

A threat is useless without the ability to do it. If a thief can make a threat to harm me if I don't surrender, the thief can harm me. Now why should I trust that thief to do as he promises and not harm me? Maybe he doesn't want witnesses. Maybe he's just evil and enjoys hurting people. But I'm not going to trust him with my life if I have any other choice.

 

Oh and using violence is a crime, even against thieves, and rightly so! Just because someone else does it gives you no right to do it yourself.

 

Wrong. Using violence in self defense is not a crime. If someone points a gun at you and says they're going to kill you, you have every right to kill them first. We're talking about two seperate cases here:

 

1) Criminal is an immediate threat. Carrying a gun in your house, charging you with a knife, whatever. If you don't reply with violence, there is a large chance that you will be the victim of it. In that case, it is entirely justified to do so. As I said, while you try to harm an innocent person, you forfiet your right to life.

 

2) Criminal is not an immediate threat. If they can't hurt you, of course it isn't justified to hurt them! In the cases you describe, the thief is not an immediate threat to your safety, and killing him is simple murder.

[Shakkara]

A threat is useless without the ability to do it. If a thief can make a threat to harm me if I don't surrender, the thief can harm me. Now why should I trust that thief to do as he promises and not harm me? Maybe he doesn't want witnesses. Maybe he's just evil and enjoys hurting people. But I'm not going to trust him with my life if I have any other choice.

You probably have no idea what it is like here. If a single person gets murdered then it makes the headlines, and people will go march and litter the place with flowers. All the cops in the area will go find the dude that did it. People are not eager to murder people over here. Break in someone's home and get caught by the owner, you can get away with that. It is very very hard to get away with murder.

 

 

Wrong. Using violence in self defense is not a crime. If someone points a gun at you and says they're going to kill you, you have every right to kill them first.

Which is still amoral and instantly lowers you to the attacker's level.

 

We're talking about two seperate cases here:

 

1) Criminal is an immediate threat. Carrying a gun in your house, charging you with a knife, whatever. If you don't reply with violence, there is a large chance that you will be the victim of it. In that case, it is entirely justified to do so. As I said, while you try to harm an innocent person, you forfiet your right to life.

 

2) Criminal is not an immediate threat. If they can't hurt you, of course it isn't justified to hurt them! In the cases you describe, the thief is not an immediate threat to your safety, and killing him is simple murder.

 

Well I rather put it this way, there are two kinds of criminals, the ones that are hurt or misguided so to speak (for which I blame society), and the psychos with a mental disorder (or very hurt or very misguided which went out of control and can no longer be reasoned with, in which case I also blame society). The first group is far less violent and can usually be reintegrated into society (if it is a good society that is), but the second group is much more difficult and has to be kept away from people because they will continue to be a threat. Neither group has less rights then a normal person though, and while we might fundamentally disagree with their actions we still have no right to punish them.

[Zmid]

1) Criminals have exactly zero rights in the process of attempting to harm someone. As soon as they attack (note: I mean in a way that is a clear threat of serious harm) an innocent person, they forfiet everything, including the right to life. The victim has every right to stop them by any means necessary, including killing them.

 

2) But... once there is no immediate danger, they should be given the same rights as any other person. White Wolf got it exactly right, at that point, they are merely a suspect, not a criminal.

I totally agree with you right up to here.

 

3) Once they have been found guilty in court, they lose rights depending on the type of crime. Meaning jail/fines/execution/etc are all justified, once guilt has been proven. I don't see any problem with the death penalty, as long as it is applied in a fair and even manner and only to those who are actually guilty of the death of another person (yeah, yeah, I can dream, can't I?). Of course I'd rather see someone suffer in a prison cell for the rest of their life instead of getting an easy escape into death. But ONLY what the court has decided is justified. Police abuse and stuff is completely wrong.

 

I mostly agree with this statement, but there is only one thing - what if a person is executed, then new evidence comes to light which exonerates him? An appeal would only really clear his name, but it wouldn't bring him back from the dead. I do actually agree with the death penalty, but only in the most extreme cases (ie a mass murderer), and only if there is not the slightest doubt of the guilt of the accused, ie there is absolute, undeniable concrete evidence against him.

 

Your stance on gun control, or lack thereof, however, I totally disagree with.

 

4) As for banning guns... that's completely insane. One, that ban would only apply to those who actually follow the law.

 

But it also makes it far harder for criminals to get guns in the first place. Where are they going to get them? They can't just knock over the local gun store, or even just go in and perfectly legally buy one, because there won't be such a thing as a gun store. They would have to try to smuggle one in from abroad, and that requires contacts in organised crime, which an ordinary housebreaker probably wouldn't have. Secondly, if anyone gets stopped by the police and a gun is found upon them, they are instantly breaking the law, and can be arrested, which would radically cut down on the number of guns in circulation.

 

Just look at drugs... they're illegal, but they get into the country anyway.  The same would happen with guns... those who don't care about the law would get them.

 

The main reason for that is that, quite often, drugs can come in small packages that can be smuggled....how can I put this delicately....internally. By comparison, firearms are large packages that are difficult to conceal or disguise.

 

Or just find an alternate way of killing people... knives, baseball bats, whatever it takes.

 

Or their bare hands. However, these people are far easier to deal with than if they had guns.

 

And you have to admit, arming the victims is an excellent way of cutting crime. Lets say 50% of the population carries a gun and keeps one in the house. And lets say that in any crime, the victim and criminal each have a 50% chance of killing the other (just to simplify it). Even if not a single shot is fired, crime is going to drop. Any potential criminal knows that he has a 25% chance of dying. Break into four houses and that's the end. Then add in the fact that now the victims can defend themselves, and we're better off with our weapons.

 

The whole drawback with this argument is that there is no reliable method of telling who the victims are going to be and who the criminals are going to be before the crime takes place, so, by arming the victims, you are also arming the criminals.

 

Secondly, you are also oversimplifying. The chance of the criminal getting the drop on the victim is far greater than the chances of the opposite, unless the criminal is a bit of an idiot. This is for two main reasons:

 

i) To use your example, as good thieves rely on stealth, if the thief is any good at all, the first the victim will know the thief is in the house is when he gets woken up by a gun being pressed into him. Either that, or the first he knows is when he goes downstairs in the morning to find his TV, DVD player, games console, PC, etc are missing.

 

ii) Most people only think they will be a victim of crime in an abstract manner, so, when it actually happens, they are usually totally unprepared for it.

[Peregrine]

You probably have no idea what it is like here. If a single person gets murdered then it makes the headlines, and people will go march and litter the place with flowers. All the cops in the area will go find the dude that did it. People are not eager to murder people over here. Break in someone's home and get caught by the owner, you can get away with that. It is very very hard to get away with murder.

 

Maybe true over there... and I wish I could say the same for here. Someone here gets murdered, it probably won't even get on the front page. Its an unpleasant fact, but reality here is that trusting a criminal to choose not to hurt you is pretty much suicide.

And I would disagree with the difficulty. The simple fact is, without a suspect, the case goes nowhere. They can march all they want, but that won't change the fact that there's a house of dead bodies and nobody saw who did it. Well, maybe not in a city... but in a less densely populated area like where I live, you could be shot and robbed and nobody would notice until way too late.

 

Wrong. Using violence in self defense is not a crime. If someone points a gun at you and says they're going to kill you, you have every right to kill them first.

Which is still amoral and instantly lowers you to the attacker's level.

 

You'd rather have you, your family, your children, etc, all die instead of shoot someone in self defense? Of course in an ideal world, this wouldn't be an issue. But we don't live in one.

 

Well I rather put it this way, there are two kinds of criminals, the ones that are hurt or misguided so to speak (for which I blame society), and the psychos with a mental disorder (or very hurt or very misguided which went out of control and can no longer be reasoned with, in which case I also blame society). The first group is far less violent and can usually be reintegrated into society (if it is a good society that is), but the second group is much more difficult and has to be kept away from people because they will continue to be a threat. Neither group has less rights then a normal person though, and while we might fundamentally disagree with their actions we still have no right to punish them.

 

I actually agree with a lot of this. Society is to blame for a lot of violent crime, and we have a responsibility to help these people. My statement of lost rights only applies if there is an immediate danger to innocent people (ex: shooting someone who is trying to kill you). Once there is no danger, they must be given their basic rights. While I disagree with your idea that we have no right to punish them (according to fair laws, I don't mean abusing them), I do agree that the primary goal should be correcting the problem that is responsible. Our society's "solution" of just putting them in prison for a while is very flawed.

 

I mostly agree with this statement, but there is only one thing - what if a person is executed, then new evidence comes to light which exonerates him? An appeal would only really clear his name, but it wouldn't bring him back from the dead. I do actually agree with the death penalty, but only in the most extreme cases (ie a mass murderer), and only if there is not the slightest doubt of the guilt of the accused, ie there is absolute, undeniable concrete evidence against him.

 

That's why I put it in those "ideal world" terms. My problem with the death penalty is not the death penalty itself, but the fact that it doesn't always work as it should. Innocent people die for crimes they didn't commit, people are unevenly punished by biased juries, etc. As long as these concerns still exist, it should be banned.

 

Where are they going to get them? They can't just knock over the local gun store, or even just go in and perfectly legally buy one, because there won't be such a thing as a gun store. They would have to try to smuggle one in from abroad, and that requires contacts in organised crime, which an ordinary housebreaker probably wouldn't have. Secondly, if anyone gets stopped by the police and a gun is found upon them, they are instantly breaking the law, and can be arrested, which would radically cut down on the number of guns in circulation.

 

Every word of that should be true if you replace it with drugs. But as we can see, it isn't. And you wouldn't need those contacts in organized crime... what's stopping people from becoming illegal gun dealers just like they become illegal drug dealers? Sure, a ban might stop some criminals from getting them, but many others are going to get them anyway. And it would take the best defense against them away from the people who do obey the laws.

 

Just look at drugs... they're illegal, but they get into the country anyway.  The same would happen with guns... those who don't care about the law would get them.

The main reason for that is that, quite often, drugs can come in small packages that can be smuggled....how can I put this delicately....internally. By comparison, firearms are large packages that are difficult to conceal or disguise.

 

As I said, guns would be smuggled in and distributed just like drugs. And you overestimate the difficulty of doing so. A pistol (the ideal weapon for most crimes) is fairly small, and can be hidden easily. And unlike drugs, is undetectable by dogs/similar searches, since it appears no different than any other metal part. And as for the scale... drugs get in on a large scale, that's simple fact. The police have caught massive shipments, and no sane person can belive that they get all of them. And just to make things even harder, add in the fact that the police can't be everywhere with perfect searches. Things are going to slip through.

 

Or just find an alternate way of killing people... knives, baseball bats, whatever it takes.

Or their bare hands. However, these people are far easier to deal with than if they had guns.

 

Very wrong. Those are much harder to deal with for many people. Sure, if you're a match for the criminal in strength, you might be able to do better. But lets look at me for example... I'm not that strong, and I have almost no experience with fighting. So lets say someone tries to break into my house....

 

1) Kitchen knife vs. me with whatever knife/bat/fists I can get to: my only chance of survival is to surrender and hope for the best. And if the criminal wants me dead for whatever reason, I've got no chance.

 

2) Gun vs. me with gun: I survive easily. As I said, pick a room and a doorway and let him come to me. Either he has to be satisfied with whatever he can steal from elsewhere in the house and let me live, or he can come die. And even if I can't force an ideal situation, I've got at least an even chance of survival.

 

The whole drawback with this argument is that there is no reliable method of telling who the victims are going to be and who the criminals are going to be before the crime takes place, so, by arming the victims, you are also arming the criminals.

 

But as I said, criminals will probably be armed anyway. And if not with guns, then with other, impossible to control, weapons.

 

i) To use your example, as good thieves rely on stealth, if the thief is any good at all, the first the victim will know the thief is in the house is when he gets woken up by a gun being pressed into him.

 

Irrelevant. If the thief chooses stealth, the weapon/lack of weapon means nothing. If he chooses to use stealth to kill the victim before he can defend himself, than keeping him from having a gun does nothing. Anyone with almost any weapon can kill a sleeping victim. A kitchen knife can easily be fatal, and is impossible to control access to. Or maybe they could smash the victim's head with a hammer from the local hardware store. You get caught sleeping and defenseless like that, your only hope is that the criminal doesn't want to kill you.

 

Either that, or the first he knows is when he goes downstairs in the morning to find his TV, DVD player, games console, PC, etc are missing.[/

 

Once again, the weapon is irrelevant... the confrontation never happens. It wouldn't matter if you've got a minigun and the thief has a dull spoon. Or the other way around...

 

ii) Most people only think they will be a victim of crime in an abstract manner, so, when it actually happens, they are usually totally unprepared for it.

 

And that's just an argument in favor of being prepared. An unprepared victim is in serious trouble no matter what weapons (or lack of) they and the criminal have.

[Dr. Corbett]

I don't think it has anything to do with society, per se. Canada's society, despite what anyone may tell you, is extremely (99%) similar to American society. We're barely distinguishable. [iMHO.] In fact, we even have more guns per capita. So, why is that you have more murders? It doesn't have to do with guns or culture... I think that it has to do with gangs, and the drug money and racial tension that they feed off of.

[ctogher]

As for banning guns... that's completely insane. One, that ban would only apply to those who actually follow the law.

:D Absolutely accurate. By definition, criminals are not law abiding. Imagine yourself as a criminal and having such a law passed. Your victims have just been disarmed! It must be like xmas everyday! :lol:

 

The problem is twofold:

 

1] As more rights are provided to the defense of the criminal fraternity, actual punishment becomes less and less severe. Where is the deterrent? :huh:

 

2] The social reasoning behind the crimes, (please note, I have little pity for anyone resorting to violence for survival :veryangry: ), will always be present. Ask yourself what the reasoning will be if we manage to eradicate poverty? I sincerely doubt that crime will diminish while certain elements in society believe that they can have what they want by force.... :blink:

 

I personally advocate stronger deterrents. Over here, there have been a number of cases where the community has taken the law into their own hands. (Note: in the more rural areas, there is virtually no crime. Not because of a lack of oppurtunity but because of the threat of tribal law, which is far less forgiving than our civilised pipe-dream of 'Due Process'.) Any rapist apprehended by the residents had better say his prayers. He will receive what is referred to as a necklace. (Tyre thrown over head to pin arms, covered in petrol and set alight).

 

Perhaps the more secular Muslim countries have this one right. Caught for rape, have your jewels detached by a caring professional in a very public place. Theft, lose a hand. Murder, be dispatched in as humane a way as possible with little/no suffering. The important thing is that none of this must ever happen behind closed doors. Broadcast the punishment. Let all who see it have a clear understanding that their actions have a consequence. That the "poor, misunderstood rapscallion" currently having his tackle detahced on national TV could be them next. (Perhaps flash a parental control warning prior to airing).

 

Let's face it. The death penalty is a debate as old as the hills. But it has lost effect because very few criminals have ever seen it actually happen. Provide them some visual stimuli and suddenly they may do a second take before continuing on the path they have, freely, chosen.

[Peregrine]

1] As more rights are provided to the defense of the criminal fraternity, actual punishment becomes less and less severe. Where is the deterrent? 

 

I agree. You have to remember, these "victims" have comitted various crimes. They have knowingly broken the law, even though they know there will be punishment. While I definitely don't think prisoners should be abused or punished out of proportion to their crimes, they definitely don't deserve to be given every luxury they can sue for.

 

2] The social reasoning behind the crimes, (please note, I have little pity for anyone resorting to violence for survival  ), will always be present. Ask yourself what the reasoning will be if we manage to eradicate poverty? I sincerely doubt that crime will diminish while certain elements in society believe that they can have what they want by force....

 

Obviously there's no way to eliminate every bit of crime, but it can be reduced significantly. I mean, look at the cause of some things. If someone is so poor they can't even afford to eat, of course they would be desperate enough to steal/kill to survive. Now lets say we completely eliminate poverty. Now that person has at least a decent life, and no desperate need. Are they going to risk everything to get more through violent methods?

And another good example of where we can help is the drug problem in this country. Instead of dealing with the problem, we lock people in jail for a few years, then they go out and do it again. And commit all the crimes that go along with it, killing for drug money, using drugs and losing control, etc. But what if instead of prison we sent them to treatment? A big part of the problem goes away.

Also, some crimes are commited by people with clear psychological problems. In that case, social change would definitely prevent the crimes.

 

 

I personally advocate stronger deterrents. Over here, there have been a number of cases where the community has taken the law into their own hands. (Note: in the more rural areas, there is virtually no crime. Not because of a lack of oppurtunity but because of the threat of tribal law, which is far less forgiving than our civilised pipe-dream of 'Due Process'.) Any rapist apprehended by the residents had better say his prayers. He will receive what is referred to as a necklace. (Tyre thrown over head to pin arms, covered in petrol and set alight).

 

Perhaps the more secular Muslim countries have this one right. Caught for rape, have your jewels detached by a caring professional in a very public place. Theft, lose a hand. Murder, be dispatched in as humane a way as possible with little/no suffering. The important thing is that none of this must ever happen behind closed doors. Broadcast the punishment. Let all who see it have a clear understanding that their actions have a consequence. That the "poor, misunderstood rapscallion" currently having his tackle detahced on national TV could be them next. (Perhaps flash a parental control warning prior to airing).

 

Except what do you say when you just "necklaced" the wrong peson? Or to they guy with one hand because a witness gave a poor identification? Its a proven fact, our "justice" system makes mistakes. If you send them to prison/psychological treatment/etc you can let them out at any time. Sure, they lose a few years of their life, but they can start again. But if you start giving out sentences like that, you're going to hurt innocent people. And that's completely ignoring the fact that at least one of those is far out of proportion to the seriousness of the crime. I mean, cutting off someone's hand for stealing? Stealing is much less serious than that! At worst, someone loses money. That's not even close to the value of the life you're destroying. Fines, jail time, whatever, that's justified. But overkill punishment like that is wrong.

[Malchik]

Peregrine you speak from a society where an individual possession of firearms is commonplace. Until such times as the US leaves this 19th century legacy behind their view of when it is justifiable to shoot another will differ radically from a European view. Also in several states the death penalty is still allowed whereas there are very few European nations where that is the case (IIRC none of the western ones).

 

I hold by the view that if it is illegal for the state to execute individuals, it is illegal for individuals to do it. It can't even be described as 'taking the law into your own hands' as it is not the law.

 

Using 'reasonable levels' of self defence is permitted (and reasonable is very difficult to define) but with the relative paucity of guns amongst the average Europeans it is unlikely include shooting. Therefore I doubt if there is a consensus view possible on this issue between Europe and the US.

 

I loathe firearms of all kinds and believe they should be banned by all intelligent societies.