The Instigator
Skt1Faker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Atmas
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Is it okay to commit a crime with a good intentions.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Atmas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,218 times Debate No: 65205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Skt1Faker

Pro

Even if people commit a crime with a good reasons, offense is offense. Socrates left a famous saying 'A law is law, however undesirable it may be.' According to this quotes, we can realize that it can be a crime doesn't matter of our purpose. Also if we forgive offense because of their intention, whole criminals will say they did crime for good will. What I want to say is process is much more important that result, or purpose.
Atmas

Con

Despite my Con status, I'm arguing in favor of good intentions.

First and foremost, we must explain which laws and what intentions before we can decide this. Generalizing will only lead to ridiculous situations. Second, we have to decide how strictly one must follow the law in order to understand what actions are expected. If the law must always be upheld at all times and everyone should operate by them, we will walk down a dangerous path towards a dystopian universe. If the law can be broken when the absolute need arises, but punishment is still doled out without considering the absolute need, then we have an unfair system that lacks the main ingredient of human society: empathy.

There are already many ways a criminal can appeal their case to get their sentence reduced or thrown out and the entire point of an appeal is showing either the crime done in good intentions, lack of intention, or of rehabilitation and a lesson learned. The court system (speaking of the U.S) would be entirely unnecessary is the law is the law, because then you would get caught by the police and be punished immediately. The goal of a trial is to determine the various factors involved in the crime with "Intention" being the largest factor, and to adjust a punishment according to the severity of the crime.

This is one of the biggest issues with strict law abiding, you forget that laws are broken in ranges, not in absolute terms. Imagine how many people would be doing 25 to life for murder after getting into a car wreck and someone accidentally dying. Manslaughter, a harsh but much lesser charge was created to deal with accidental deaths from reckless behavior. This is similar to the moral argument, is doing the forbidden action the real issue or is the consequences?

Rarely do criminals have a good enough reason to commit serious crimes, and the courts know this. If you're charged with rape, you have to prove you didn't do it, not that you had a good reason.
Murder can be tricky, but typically the courts give punishments anyway to placate the public even though the punishment is unjustified. Take the example of an intruder in a family home. The intruder is brandishing a large knife and is making his way to the daughters room. The father hears the intruder and grabs his pistol, sees the intruder enter his daughters room with a knife, and rushes to the room. The father scares the intruder by yelling and pointing his gun at the intruder, causing the intruder to try and use the daughter as a human shield. What does the father do? If he follows the law is the law, he wouldn't shoot the intruder because it's illegal to shoot people. His daughter is worth far more to the father than the intruder, and there's a real and credible threat to the daughter. Is the father not justified in shooting the intruder? It's unfair to suggest the father knows enough about shooting to merely disable the intruder, so there's a good chance the shot will be fatal.

You see? There's an undeniable gradient of law breakage.
Debate Round No. 1
Skt1Faker

Pro

Skt1Faker forfeited this round.
Atmas

Con

I extend my arguments. I'm going to guess my opponent has given up this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Skt1Faker

Pro

Skt1Faker forfeited this round.
Atmas

Con

Extended again.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
De Ja Vu?
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Based on the topic question, you should have been Con.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
A crime with a good intention would be stealing food from a store to feed your family or something like that. Just a reference for anyone who might want to debate this.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
"Is it okay to commit a crime""

Are you kidding? In the US on the average we commit 3 felonies a day. http://www.amazon.com...

Our tyrannical government (aka the dictator in the White House) only follows and enforce the laws he feels like. For example, if the government wants to incarcerate, or spoil your day, or freeze your bank accounts, etc., they could because there are so many laws on the books, on the average we commit 3 felonies a day.
http://blogs.loc.gov...

As Lavrenti Beria, chief of Josef Stalin"s secret police, once stated, "You bring me the man, I"ll find you the crime."

Too bad the US no longer follows the US Constitution.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Skt1FakerAtmasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Skt1FakerAtmasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
Skt1FakerAtmasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: A one sided argument, Atmas wins again!