In certain circumstances, is some crime understandable ( and laudable )?

[bozo]

It has been reported that failed fatcat banker Fred " the shred" Goodwin, held responsible for massive losses at the Royal Bank of Scotland, yet the beneficiary of a £ 700,000 p.a. pension, payable from age 50, has had one of his luxury homes and 2 of his luxury cars vandalised.
I would answer my own question " yes " on both counts.

Those responsible threaten to carry out similar actions against others of the Goodwin variety of bloated capitalist crooks, so interesting times may be ahead!

Thoughts?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Under certain circumstances crime is understandable, even laudable yes ... just because something is on the books as a crime does not make it morally wrong to break the relevant law.

Kyu

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

A moral relativist, of course I argue crime is perfectly OK at times.Eg stealing to prevent one self or others starving to death. The principle is expressed as "the ends justifies the means" which we use all the time as a society and as individuals,. .

Realsitically,there is a big difference between between "the law" and "justice" and an even bigger difference between "legal" "and "moral".Especially noticeable when it comes to protecting property and making money..


Law is not about morality or justice. Its main purpose is to protect the status quo. Although this is not a universal view, it is not unique either.

[fr0d0]

I have a problem that this is more media hype frenzy. A minority of people (earn) take obscene amounts of money that no person could ever justify. We must put up with this for the prosperity of our society we're told. Meanwhile real justice is met out on poor people stealing crumbs.

---

Under certain circumstances crime is understandable, even laudable yes ... just because something is on the books as a crime does not make it morally wrong to break the relevant law.

Kyu

That's what Islamic fundamentalists say anyway LOL

[Kyuuketsuki]

A moral relativist, of course I argue crime is perfectly OK at times.Eg stealing to prevent one self or others starving to death. The principle is expressed as "the ends justifies the means" which we use all the time as a society and as individuals,. .

Yes I would say I am a moral relativist inasmuch as I don't believe that there are any moral absolutes.

Realsitically,there is a big difference between between "the law" and "justice" and an even bigger difference between "legal" "and "moral".Especially noticeable when it comes to protecting property and making money..

That's true but in a rights-based democratic society I would argue that laws have a tendency to reflect societal morals.

Take speed limits ... I don't believe they were created simply to piss people off (though I think some drivers believe they were), they reflect societies general concern for the wellbeing of their fellows.

Actually I got into a long winded but very amusing argument with a friend about speeding ... he was moaning about speed cameras being dangerous because they slowed traffic down, I told him that was because the motorists were going too fast in the first place (I'm not claiming to be an angel); the argument continued and he claimed that speeding was actually safer under certain conditions (he was talking about motorways that were relatively empty I suppose) and he admitted he had on several (implicitly many) occasions done in excess of 120 MPH. That’s when I pointed out (red rag to a bull) that it was not possible to create a positively moral argument in favour of exceeding the speed limit ... it was very funny, he went everywhere with that one (citing technologies, speed limits in other countries, slow lane drivers, the works) but eventually had to (very grudgingly) concede I was correct.

I have a problem that this is more media hype frenzy. A minority of people (earn) take obscene amounts of money that no person could ever justify. We must put up with this for the prosperity of our society we're told. Meanwhile real justice is met out on poor people stealing crumbs.

You're a socialist?

Under certain circumstances crime is understandable, even laudable yes ... just because something is on the books as a crime does not make it morally wrong to break the relevant law.

That's what Islamic fundamentalists say anyway[/quote]

I guess that was humour, still I would argue that they are wrong (or at least not as right as they think they are) because even though Islam does seem to embrace social violence more than say the UK (I'm not trying to justify that above my impression) I would argue that very few of them would specifically condone flying aircraft into buildings ... not sure about that especially when I saw a "Question Time" (BBC program) shortly after and there were several young Muslims in the audience who, despite their (to my mind) extreme clothing, were obviously intelligent and well educated and refused to condemn the WTC carnage.

Kyu

---

The question I have to ask on the Goodwin thing is, if caught, should these people be tried and (potentially) found guilty because they are, after all, taking on a vigilante style role?

Kyu

[Demonaura]

The question being the crime being understandable, so in the situation of your starving and you see someone who can go without some of their food, yes it would be understandable to take it. It would not change the morality of things though, while I obviously cannot speak for anyone else if I was the person starving I would still see it as a bad thing to steal.

To save my life, frankly I'd probably do it. If I manage to stabalize myself and get back on my feet though, I'd end up apoligizing to that person and offering lunch. If he was an ass I may make exeption, some people will make a big problem instead of realising I was desperate and want to make it up to the guy.

That is the example of theft, which I see as immoral.

Also as stated above some crimes are not moral crimes. Not paying a parking meter is a crime because as a member of that society parking meters are one of the things you agree too, don't want to join in don't expect society to back your sorry butt up later. It is not immoral however (This example is not the best because it could be argued that it is theft, because you are benefitting from society and others who pay their fees while not contributing yourself. The example assumes however you pay taxes and such but, simply were not able to pay this particular fee).

[Kyuuketsuki]

The question being the crime being understandable, so in the situation of your starving and you see someone who can go without some of their food, yes it would be understandable to take it. It would not change the morality of things though, while I obviously cannot speak for anyone else if I was the person starving I would still see it as a bad thing to steal

OK, that's the example most people seem to be using, but what about other more tricky ones where one's life is not in danger? What about, for example, the suffragettes?

Suffragettes engaged in criminal actions to gain the vote that was denied them at the time ... was this understandable? To many of the day no, to a minority now probably still no but to us today it was "obviously" correct because women are now equal in just about every legal sense (even if it is imperfectly executed). Yet they were criminals because crime is a legal distinction much as murder is.

What about those people who climb up on power stations to spread an environmental message? What about the Fathers group who do super hero impressions all over buildings? Both groups are criminals in the sense (I suppose) of trespass.

What about those Germans who helped Jews escape in the second world war? I assume (don't know) that that was illegal and so they were criminals.

Kyu

[Meatball]

In general, I agree with most of the posts in this thread.

It has been reported that failed fatcat banker Fred " the shred" Goodwin, held responsible for massive losses at the Royal Bank of Scotland, yet the beneficiary of a £ 700,000 p.a. pension, payable from age 50, has had one of his luxury homes and 2 of his luxury cars vandalised.
I would answer my own question " yes " on both counts.

This is where I disagree. This is simply outward assault upon someone's properties, and can't be accepted. Sure, he might be a bad guy who fucked over a lot of people and got rewarded for it. We can't simply tolerate people violently reacting to things they don't like. Damaging someone's car does nothing for the vandal, and is obviously not the same as stealing bread to feed your family. There is no gain. Vandals such as these should be punished.

[leo-rcc]

OK, that's the example most people seem to be using, but what about other more tricky ones where one's life is not in danger? What about, for example, the suffragettes?

Nice example Kyu. The Suffragettes were despised by some and beloved by others, depending on which side of the issue they stood. In their case as is often the case they were lauded because their actions had effect, but at quite a high cost. Not all their goals are met, but there is at least much more equality than they had before and in some cases it is even reversed now.

What about those people who climb up on power stations to spread an environmental message?

Trespass I think is fine inb this case, if only momenteraly to explain your points, destroying the place is another, and that is not okay in my opinion.

What about the Fathers group who do super hero impressions all over buildings?

Trespass in the case of the superhero fathers I understand, and to the best of my knowledge their protests have always been peaceful and nothing was vandalized. I feel sorry for their cause, but I doubt their actions have much effect though.

What about those Germans who helped Jews escape in the second world war? I assume (don't know) that that was illegal and so they were criminals.

Very much so, it was considered treason to hide and/or help escape Jewish people in Nazi Germany, punishable by death or being locked up in places like Breendonk.

I think these people were nothing short of heroes. They risked their lives to save others. No matter what their motives were, either religious or secular, their effort has spared the lives of many people.

---

Damaging someone's car does nothing for the vandal, and is obviously not the same as stealing bread to feed your family. There is no gain. Vandals such as these should be punished.

I agree 100%.

[bozo]

In general, I agree with most of the posts in this thread.

It has been reported that failed fatcat banker Fred " the shred" Goodwin, held responsible for massive losses at the Royal Bank of Scotland, yet the beneficiary of a £ 700,000 p.a. pension, payable from age 50, has had one of his luxury homes and 2 of his luxury cars vandalised.
I would answer my own question " yes " on both counts.

This is where I disagree. This is simply outward assault upon someone's properties, and can't be accepted. Sure, he might be a bad guy who fucked over a lot of people and got rewarded for it. We can't simply tolerate people violently reacting to things they don't like. Damaging someone's car does nothing for the vandal, and is obviously not the same as stealing bread to feed your family. There is no gain. Vandals such as these should be punished.

Presumably, the people involved see direct, unlawful action as the only way of " punishing " this man, since the authorities seem either unwilling or unable to and he himself has point-blank refused to give up a penny of the pension he has somehow been awarded.
He is a very wealthy man and well able to put right the modest damages done to his property. At worst he has been inconvenienced.
As long as he or his family has not been assaulted or worse, then he should grin and bear it...and view as a wake-up call.
Of course the people themselves face punishment if/when caught...I'm sure they appreciate that.