The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,295 times Debate No: 65206
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




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.


When goods intentions lead to commit a crime, it means something has gone wrong in the process of the action.
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.
Debate Round No. 1


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.
Debate Round No. 2


Skt1Faker forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited. Please vote Pro
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
That was not committing a crime with good intentions in Germany. That was being legal with bad intentions.Like gay marriage, abortion, welfare and such social engineering by liberalism.
Posted by dhardage 1 year ago
It was against the law to aid and give shelter to Jews in Nazi Germany. I somehow doubt that those brave few who did break that law were doing anything really wrong. Legal and right are not synonymous.
Posted by Oliark 1 year ago
Wow you just proved that crime with good intention is okay
by proving that legality with bad intentions can be still be wrong
Posted by Stefy 1 year ago
"Remember, everything that Hitler did was legal."
-Martin Luther King Jr.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
Self-defense is never murder.
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
Self defense can potentially lead to murder if the threat is that big. And as such, those who murder the one who's attacking are normally acquitted. Self defense has good intentions, and it goes against the law, and isn't punishable by the courts system, as that was the measure you had to take to save your own life.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
It is never acceptable and will breed more crime. Just take welfare. Good intentions may be the drive, but the results are more crime and more poverty. It takes wisdom to see the difference. That is very lacking in government today.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
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