1

A Philosophy on CrimeP. Bates

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

- Frederick Bastiat

I would like to explore the idea of being ‘free’ and/or ‘doing as one pleases’ within reason. Defining ‘reason’ can be a hard task, but we can make the assumption that one should not bring harm to another or their property in anyway. To more define the word ‘reasonable’, which I believe is to mean is acting within an objective purpose, not being extreme or excessive. The first step in creating reasonable people is to permit one to act individually construct a moral and political belief system, one should better define what is important. The idea, I am aware, is misrepresented because most people live their lives out of impulse and without intentions. The idea of crime exists in a society where people have acted without regard for their society. I believe criminal law therefore exists from the ignorant, offensive, and foolish, which have set a precedent of no regard for society.

Assuming people are more aware of the harms that certain actions suggest and can live a reasonable lifestyle upon their own volition. We can therefore only assess criminal law is out-dated and is followed from fear of punishment. It was intended by the writers of the United States Constitution, that the government should fear its people. Crime begins as a progressive revenue source and affixes the state’s control of the people, creating a belief that law is intended for social-welfare. Our sovereign rights as Americans, it seems, our civil duties should be based upon the principles of liberty. The state seeks nothing more than a collective and apprehensive following. Firstly we should define law, and more specifically the identity of “crime”.

The ‘criminal justice’ is the law-makers approach of influencing the general public upon the basis of right and wrong, a deterrent for personal one’s said liberties or a direct repression of personal liberties. The personal actions are relevant to one’s happiness and without feasible harm to others. Here is a quote from the second volume of Glen Walters’s book, Foundations of Criminal Science. “The government does not have the moral right to establish the law without populace or are not in the best interests of its citizenry, yet still has the power to enforce the laws”. (Walters) Those who vote for representatives should be shocked to recognize the construction of law that is supposedly in our best interests. This denies the validity of democracy in a group, if the elected decide the interests of the majority. The politicians give our government its criminal law definitions, not representing its people’s direct personal interest to liberty.

The use of autonomy in one’s person existence is highly sought. The personalization of economics, well-being, and entertainment are some examples of the way society perceives itself. If we realize it or not, a society of many individuals fails, the theory of a communal unit is the backing for three important factors in society, summed up in three factors “inter-personal relationships, culture, and advancement”. For one to truly be autonomous is to wholly deny the existence of the community, which is being successfully executed through political correctness, and feminist ideological movements. The community has traditionally existed through history, and is a principle of natural law. The natural law is based on the metaphysical moral principles,

2

establishing right and common good, linking Christian Existentialism of harmony in nature and the practice of freedom through human action.

Natural law theory permitted Thomas Jefferson to justify his trinity of "inalienable rights". John Locke also argued that human beings in the state of nature are free and equal, yet insecure in their freedom. Particularly, equality acts a just or moral axiom, not in the sense that all are equal members of society, but each has privilege to equal rights. I believe Locke implies people need government, assuming security in freedom. Each individual retains fundamental privilege drawn from natural law relating to the integrity of person and property. This natural rights theory provided a philosophical basis for the American and French Revolutions. However, governments loosely based on “inalienable rights” create margins or ‘means to ends’ through creating revenues and state control. Members enter society surrendering one’s inalienable rights upon their insecurity of freedom or as what seems necessary to civil duty. This group follows what seems to be a state classified common good, which does not seem to be philosophically sound in principles of freedom.

‘For one to fit well into society they must follow the natural order of the way nature works to create an appreciation of how society should develop.” To fully understand such an open-ended point, a person would have to better understand nature by being a part of it for a time, an example of this is Thoreau’s study at ‘Walden Pond’. Thoreau’s writings highlight living in nature and how it emphasizes a balance of nature and industry is the most workable for the modern-day individual. For one to fully understand the concept of crime one must understand a natural order and Aristotle’s axiom of “The golden mean”. The golden mean is the desirable middle between two extremes. The mean is a compromise between courage (a virtue) and if taken to excess it produces recklessness. Creating a mean in one’s life should give one a respect for the “rule of law” and an overall respect for the common good.

The concept of individualism gives one the plausibility of personal ethics and therefore a personal of interpretation of law. ‘De jure’ and ‘De facto’ law split the law itself and the general practice of the law. De jure translates to concern fact of law or lawful authority as final authority. De facto is concerning fact, essentially the practiced law upon good-faith of the people. More clearly defined, De facto practice stands in a society which views certain laws as obsolete. In better perspective, one can be live according to personal beliefs, and in a sense circumventing the law of the land. In most cases, law is not followed and surly is not enforced as of model public policy. In light of De facto law, unlawful behavior is a choice, but one cannot discount law for only its risk, we should assume all laws are equally ethical in nature. This assumes murder is no more unscrupulous than stealing a piece of bubble-gum. No doubt, measures are taken to highly regard law, aspiring not to be caught in unlawful actions. Unfortunately, law is often regarded as an individual response or suggestion rather than the rule of law. Any response to law comes from careful understanding of one’s civil-duties and moral code. These personal responses come from intentionally constructing one’s personal construction of a moral and political belief system, this determines what is important valid and valuable to each person.

The idea of law is widely acceptable and somehow people don’t mind giving up their freedoms in the light of unreasonable laws. In some sense, law is put to use for a sense of security and a feeling of justice being structured. What wrong is committed when no one is being harmed of physical or mental sort? My personal view on the matter goes as follows, “If rules are

3

to keep peace, one can defy the rule and achieve the same effect as the rule, why should punishment be enacted?” Individual response in this instance can be considered as asserting one’s liberty and draw from the intentions of the rule of law, in a duty to enact common good.

Criminal law seem to be composed as the political agendas, which make issues that expunge money from people or prevent a natural order which is replaced by government. Popular thought is government exists to create a model society. As the civil liberties insist, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, prescribed crime seems to be a violation there of. However, this implies the common good according to the state.

The state can criminalize trivial public disorder or an act that would turn a profit, with such philosophy, criminalizing out-weights the alternative. Creating an enforceable standard deters people’s actions against the will of the state. Creating an often costly penalty prescribed by the state for this behavior. The theory of crime is based on the states authority to create an ideal social welfare, maximizing government influence. Complex government control is unreliable for their service to the public, yet inquires about collective control are failed. Total enforcement is not possible, and is wishful thinking to assume the government is doing their job. However, what is considered crime where then is no victim. This phenomenon of autonomy is obviously not the best plan for a society. The harmful effects of crime are the victims which it exploits. The issue now contends to be the victim’s status in society; the individual is entitled to civil liberties as well. In the purest sense, one’s actions should neither affect nor indirectly deprive any individual(s) of liberties or property. Crimes against one another should be prevented, yet if societies corrected their own members, the cost on society would reduce costs and involving citizens creates common tie to their community. Yet, this is not possible because citizen do not fully take part in their civil duties to keep a common good.

Those we allow authority over us, deny community and slowly instill state collectivism. In consideration of community, victimless crime is not a matter of the public good, rather is has not effect on society in itself, in all probability that these crimes lead to harm to others. Here are a few examples of victimless crime, which in themselves, do not harm the fellow-man. Speeding, buying drugs/getting high, underage smoking, prostitution (buying or selling), public drunkenness, unlicensed possession of a gun, underage consumption of alcohol, and many others. Public order crimes are consensual crime, victimless vice, and victimless crime. “The Harm principle” is outlined in John Locke’s book, On Liberty. He tells of the liberty we are given as sovereign individuals, but we have to consider others morals and disruption in society. Mill concludes that government should not forcibly prevent people from engaging in victimless crime (Mills). We also have to consider state’s control of the public good and how the harm principle could be applied in the instance of harming one’s self. Acts of any sort should be acceptable, on the provision that it is clearly restricted to one’s self and personal liberty.

If one would dare, they might argue criminal law in the sense of common law we gain the use of true government working toward just causes. Kant understands the criminal system to conflict with extent of preventative punishment to deter crime and the use of how the justice system views man. Man is considered not a thing, but a means to an end within himself. Man as an end in himself is the consideration for deterrence of crime, assuming that crime is prevented with one man. When man is a thing or a means, we can then grasp the ideals of American society

4

as free-communities, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness”. Law exists to prevent criminal conduct of the sort, where punishment seems to be the chief and only purpose to give motive for not committing criminal acts. It seems that using the deontological ethic is not expected any longer for man to live the best moral life.

If a value system is based upon society, should not changes in a society’s values create a change in criminal law? (Schur) Nevertheless, the community should harmonize on civil conformity and every man should use his best conduct. When some temperaments, ignorance, and folly threaten civil conformity, punishment should be enacted. Man is accountable for all he does and that one individual is dispensable for the good of society’s whole (Holmes). Through the existence of community, it attributes unto itself a set of unspoken values and policy, from which the citizens act as a self-governing.

Morally, we contend with crime as it harms fellow-man or is expected to harm another. When, however law is repressive to our liberties, we should logically reconsider crime and its direct application of injustice. Governments and policing agencies create unrealistic and widely accepted standards as law, about are ironically ineffective in achievement. The idea of punishment through the backing of law seems to take a non-sequitur approach when justice is said to be sought after. The use of law is, in theory is to eliminate injustice, yet some agree this way of thinking is an improper conjecture.

Thoreau, I believe, says it best when he speaks of the axiom of justice. He speaks of men who desire no government association, where there is direct rule of the citizens or the majority. Opposed to government or the minority, has never itself furthered any worthy enterprise. Government has never held freedom nor educated, yet its only successful when great men are imposed upon it. In all practical reason, the authority of the majority will rule, not because are right, but because they are physically strongest. As for justice, the majority cannot always rule in favor of the right or wrong, rather it would hinge on conscience and expediency. He goes on to tell how law is nothing to cultivate respect for and only right we have is to do what one thinks is right. Also asserting that law has never made man any more just, and to respect law one become an agent of injustice (Thoreau).

The moral authority of the freedom depends upon the individual’s view of themselves in society. Feelings of worth in society depend upon one’s self-worth and often people do not hold themselves as equal participants in society. According to some, all men are not equals, this could hold true to some extent when certain groups are ignorant to civility and selflessness. Those who cannot do their duty as citizens and who do not care to contribute, I believe are lesser in society. Upholding in practice one’s rights as a citizen should create collective adhesion with the given individual rights, but never forced collectivism. The ideal moral society, each contributes benefit his society by giving on one’s knowledge and means in regard for others. However, if an individual chooses to be non-beneficial to society and removes himself, that is his one freedom. Who should question him?

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness seems to be a fading axiom of government and a time in history where people demanded their natural rights and representation. Law appears crafted to political agenda and the intent is to control, protect people from themselves, and create a system of programming which remove community. In theory, those who govern the

5

majority have a lesser recognition of justice, but who experience community should hold a stronger sense of justice as the majority. We should each then, personally strive to acquire a foundation of ethics and political beliefs to guide our actions and be community minded. In creating a sense of duty amongst personal affairs and theoretical lesser duty to law, the majority knows a more real sense of justice. On the other hand, those who commit a crime against government authority view crime as simply getting caught and the punishment as a mean to an end. To entirely define crime, one should regard others as directly involving others; this should give new meaning to crime and justice as a means to community, not as an end in itself.

6

Works CitedHolmes Jr., Oliver Wendell. The Common Law and Other Writings. Birmingham, AL: Gyphon

Editions Ltd., 1982.

Mills, John Stuart. On Liberty. New York: Classic Books America, 2009.

Schur, Edwin M. Crimes without Victims. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965.

Thoreau, Henery David. Walden and Civil Disobedience. Harrisonburg, VA.: Viking Penguin

Inc., 1983.

Walters, Glen D. Foundations of Criminal Science: vol 2: The Use of Knowledge. Santa Barbra,

CA.: Greenwood Publishing, 1992.