Is it okay to commit a crime with a good intentions?
Debate Rounds (3)
Treat people committing accidental criminals like others criminal acting on purpose discourages people from doing good.
The term "Goods intentions" has to be understood as a will to achieve common well being. (Selfish purposes or favours to relatives disregarding third parties are not to be considered)
Let's take a probabilistic approach : let's say you have the choice to initiate an action having a good intention. Your chances of having a good result are above 50% (if less it would be a foolish action). Your expected value of outcome is positive and therefore you should act. If something goes wrong during the process of the action, it doesn't not necessarily mean the whole action was not worth a shot.
"Also if we forgive offense because of their intention, whole criminals will say they did crime for good will."
What criminal say is not relevant. Juries and Judges should use facts to determine whether the offender acts can be justified. For instance in US criminal law "Justifiable homicide" exists in cases of self defense or prevention of major crimes (like rape or armed robbery).
This is not the case in civil law European countries where it happens quite often that a goldsmith who kills a thief or a policeman who kills a fleeing suspect are charged with culpable murder and sentenced to prison. Law should acknowledge that the victim is no longer equal to the aggressor.
Offenders should be judged on a case-by-case basis and eventually exculpated or at least have their punishment greatly reduced if there is factual evidence justifying their crime.
Skt1Faker forfeited this round.
My opponent forfeited so I will not add much more to this debate.
There is a concept widely teached in European legal thinking according to which there cannot be legality without a democratic "Rechtstaat" (literally rule of law.)
According to this definition of legality a regime loosing democracy looses any authority to pass legislation and make decisions. In other words, even if Hitler was elected (Regardless if there is was fraud or not). The day they in which the Nazi banned all others political parties, they lost legitimate authority to pass legislation.
In any case one could argue that even a democratic system is not infallible. I will use a quote from "The tyranny of Good Intentions"
"the practice of convicting citizens for violating vague and complex statues that they had no intent to disobey is a departure from the common-law tradition under which criminality requires both the intention to commit a crime and a criminal act."
So basically there is now way an action based on unselfish good intentions can be considered a crime.
Unless it was a very foolish action or a real criminal intent : But was it really a good intention then ?
I think it is important to distinguish what people perceive as being good intentions to what good intentions are according to the law.
Skt1Faker forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.