Here in my country though, there used to be some political precedent about having justifications for a crime. We went through a political stage or phase when the previous government or administration tried to develop a socialist society here, as they were trying to reach those objectives, I recall the president of the Republic saying live in Television that he personally believed that someone shoplifting or stealing food out a supermarket was completely justified in his eyes, if it was one of a set of actions seeking to keep one's family or oneself.
What are you thoughts about it and the fact a president told so in a live speech/Presentation before the nation? Do you agree with him or do you believe someone trying to steal food is supposed to be procesuted as anyone stealing anything else unrelated to food from a supermarket?
In my opinion, that former president has very ideals ways to see the world and though supermarkets were owned by speculators, though, one cannot expect any private sector to be happy or agree with such remarks.
Topic: Justification for crime (Read 141 times)
In most developing nations justice is for sale and the highest bidder will get a favorable judgment. In some cases even when a person acted in self-defense and it is even clear to all, but because the perceived guilty person has the financial backing to bribe the judges, he would be favored by the court. In such countries like mine, justice is only for the rich.
There is no legal standard or law that justify crime but I think crime can be justifiable in some cases. A criminal offense may be justified if it in some way benefits society or upholds some norms and principles that society may value. For instance, assault could be fully justifiable if it's on the ground of self defense. It is a fundamental value of society that everyone has a right and the obligation for self defence if they come under attack, and so this behavior is in many situations justified
We should note that our rights end where the rights of others begin, so we should also respect the fundamental rights of others. Self-defense is not a criminal offense, but the problem will be the ability of the person to convince law enforcement agencies or the law court that you acted in self-defense. Don't also be deceived many people have used the concept of self-defense to murder people, hence we should be able to distinguish between willful attack and defending oneself. The concept of self-defense is widely used in countries where firearms are legal but in my country, this concept is not popular because owning a gun is highly prohibited. Let's say someone hacked the bank account of a corrupted politician or government official and donated the money to charity, would you see it as an act of good deed or a crime?
Depends on which side of the issue you approach it from. From a legal point of view, it is a crime, even if it was committed with good intentions. And if from a moral point of view, then such an act can be considered noble. But, unfortunately, the concept of "noble" is absent in the legislation.
Exactly, that is my point. Laws or legal systems don't care about the intention behind an act they have set of rules and if it's crossed then the person is guilty and if it's not then he can be free and justice comes with an expensive price tag in most of world, if you find a very good defense attorney then you can break almost any charges and be free with some penalty alone.
There is no legal standard or law that justify crime but I think crime can be justifiable in some cases. A criminal offense may be justified if it in some way benefits society or upholds some norms and principles that society may value. For instance, assault could be fully justifiable if it's on the ground of self defense. It is a fundamental value of society that everyone has a right and the obligation for self defence if they come under attack, and so this behavior is in many situations justified
Crime should not be regard as something justifiable, because we humans are very cruel and can take advantage of that. You talked about self defense, it is very important to protect yourself when it comes to attack that will cause you harm. I have seen in some cases where an attack does not require you to take some actions that will cause more harm to the person that is trying to attack you, some because of hatred can inflict harm on someone and still call it self defense. If a self defense is not showing the potentials of it, such cases should be investigated and give justice to where it is appropriate. Self defense is good when you face an assault but there should be extent to wish you should apply it and not causing more harm to the assaulter.
I agree the world is not completely black and white there are also grey areas where lawyers are to explore
this is why there are some holes in the law because the law is followed word for word
but if there is a chance that it can be perceived differently then a crime can be justified
Why you guys are saying this because your country is a nice country we a situation whereby you are living in the place that we are right now you see that there is nothing like justification for killer any crime is being treated based on the level of money you have and the connections you have so this place is a place we are by someone we win election another person will pick up our due to money corruption in the society I've seen someone before who killed and is being released but someone who did not keep is being Justified and the killer this is why there are some holes in the law because the law is followed word for word
but if there is a chance that it can be perceived differently then a crime can be justified
Let's say someone hacked the bank account of a corrupted politician or government official and donated the money to charity, would you see it as an act of good deed or a crime?
Depends on which side of the issue you approach it from. From a legal point of view, it is a crime, even if it was committed with good intentions. And if from a moral point of view, then such an act can be considered noble. But, unfortunately, the concept of "noble" is absent in the legislation.
Exactly, that is my point. Laws or legal systems don't care about the intention behind an act they have set of rules and if it's crossed then the person is guilty and if it's not then he can be free and justice comes with an expensive price tag in most of world, if you find a very good defense attorney then you can break almost any charges and be free with some penalty alone.
Let's say someone hacked the bank account of a corrupted politician or government official and donated the money to charity, would you see it as an act of good deed or a crime?
Depends on which side of the issue you approach it from. From a legal point of view, it is a crime, even if it was committed with good intentions. And if from a moral point of view, then such an act can be considered noble. But, unfortunately, the concept of "noble" is absent in the legislation.
I agree the world is not completely black and white there are also grey areas where lawyers are to explore
this is why there are some holes in the law because the law is followed word for word
but if there is a chance that it can be perceived differently then a crime can be justified
this is why there are some holes in the law because the law is followed word for word
but if there is a chance that it can be perceived differently then a crime can be justified
Yeah, I would have to agree with that assessment.
Laws are laws but enforcing them strictly like robots is not going to work. There are too many factors of circumstances that go into it. That is why we need humans to study the situation and arbitrate. However we can all agree that motivation for a crime is also extremely important. If someone committed a murder because he knew his family was in danger of being murdered and he thought that he had no other choice, then that is a different case from a guy who killed someone just because he was angry at them for whatever reason.
Second guy obviously deserves a much harsher punishment.
If someone is assaulted for self-defence then it isn't a crime at all from the legal point of view, even if the assaulted person is killed or severely injured which is justifiable? depends on the truth but who cares about the rules cause laws hold the ultimate authority.
Let's say someone hacked the bank account of a corrupted politician or government official and donated the money to charity, would you see it as an act of good deed or a crime?
Let's say someone hacked the bank account of a corrupted politician or government official and donated the money to charity, would you see it as an act of good deed or a crime?
There is a reason why it is called crime. the question is, are the laws being implemented appropriately and are those in power not abusing it? The effectiveness and fairness of law implementation can be complex issues. Ensuring accountability, transparency, and regular evaluation of legal systems are essential to prevent abuses of power and maintain public trust. That's why efforts to improve and adapt laws are crucial in addressing evolving societal needs and challenges.
I don’t think a crime is ever justified, legally any way. Some sort of vigilante justice feels good to read about though, if a pedophile or rapist gets injured as revenge it is never a bad thing. The problem is some people are branded guilty & they may not have even committed the crime so it’s sometimes a very sensitive topic. Mostly though, sentencing & punishment should be left to the courts.
There is no legal standard or law that justify crime but I think crime can be justifiable in some cases. A criminal offense may be justified if it in some way benefits society or upholds some norms and principles that society may value. For instance, assault could be fully justifiable if it's on the ground of self defense. It is a fundamental value of society that everyone has a right and the obligation for self defence if they come under attack, and so this behavior is in many situations justified
It is the duty of the citizens of the country to allow the justice system to function and to cooperate with the authorities while they investigate the situation. It is also important to have legal representation to present any evidence that supports your claim of self-defense. Self-defense is considered a natural right and is enshrined in many legal systems around the world. The right to self-defense is based on the principle of protection of one's life and well-being. In many cases, self-defense may be the only option when faced with an immediate threat to one's safety. This is a serious and complex situation, and the outcome will depend on the specific circumstances and evidence presented in court. The legal process should be allowed to unfold and the decisions of the court should be obeyed. 
There is no legal standard or law that justify crime but I think crime can be justifiable in some cases. A criminal offense may be justified if it in some way benefits society or upholds some norms and principles that society may value. For instance, assault could be fully justifiable if it's on the ground of self defense. It is a fundamental value of society that everyone has a right and the obligation for self defence if they come under attack, and so this behavior is in many situations justified
If someone harms or kills another person in self defense, then it can not be classified as a crime, because the person didn't originally have the intention of doing it, although in civilized societies it's the court that will decide whether the motive is intentional or self defense. Also if a person accidentally causes harm to another person, and he or she can proof it, then it'll be determined it it's as a result of negligence or other causes before judgement is passed. As Hispo, pointed out, everybody is innocent until proven guilty by a court, because even if it's a criminal act, the court still needs to determine the motive of the crime before passing judgement.
There is no legal standard or law that justify crime but I think crime can be justifiable in some cases. A criminal offense may be justified if it in some way benefits society or upholds some norms and principles that society may value. For instance, assault could be fully justifiable if it's on the ground of self defense. It is a fundamental value of society that everyone has a right and the obligation for self defence if they come under attack, and so this behavior is in many situations justified
But injustice is mixed with fairness in life, and the perfection present in social prejudices with legal issues is not absolute, it will have to change to be more suitable. There are so many good/bad things removed and added in our lives, I imagine people's adaptation to it is the answer to the problems in society. There are many things that actually have many solutions, but some cases still lead to undesirable things, like "war" and we can choose one side or the other to justify the cause market, but in essence it is really something that no one wants. Rather, the conflict between the parties can hardly make them harmonize and make decisions suitable for life.
I agree the world is not completely black and white there are also grey areas where lawyers are to explore
this is why there are some holes in the law because the law is followed word for word
but if there is a chance that it can be perceived differently then a crime can be justified
this is why there are some holes in the law because the law is followed word for word
but if there is a chance that it can be perceived differently then a crime can be justified
I believe you have gotten some very big misunderstandings on how law works and definition of crime. The example you provided is actually not suitable for this thread, if what you are trying to to is to justify crime.
If someone killed another person, the killer would be likely brought to court in order to determine whether he committed murder or he exercised he right to self defense. Until a jury or a judge does not declare him to be guilty, then he did not commit any crime.
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
In the eyes of the law, you cannot be a criminal and go unpunished, the only way for you to go unpunished is that you did not committed a crime.
You could kill anyone and you would innocent until proven guilty, you would not be a criminal waiting to prove a justification. There is no legal body for it to exist, as far as I know, within the western republics.
Also, I don't want to judge or anything. But it is quite suspicious the fact you continue to open threads about crime here on this section of the forum, and always from a "positive" point of way. Are you a lawyer in your country, by the way?
If someone killed another person, the killer would be likely brought to court in order to determine whether he committed murder or he exercised he right to self defense. Until a jury or a judge does not declare him to be guilty, then he did not commit any crime.
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
In the eyes of the law, you cannot be a criminal and go unpunished, the only way for you to go unpunished is that you did not committed a crime.
You could kill anyone and you would innocent until proven guilty, you would not be a criminal waiting to prove a justification. There is no legal body for it to exist, as far as I know, within the western republics.
Also, I don't want to judge or anything. But it is quite suspicious the fact you continue to open threads about crime here on this section of the forum, and always from a "positive" point of way. Are you a lawyer in your country, by the way?
There is no legal standard or law that justify crime but I think crime can be justifiable in some cases. A criminal offense may be justified if it in some way benefits society or upholds some norms and principles that society may value. For instance, assault could be fully justifiable if it's on the ground of self defense. It is a fundamental value of society that everyone has a right and the obligation for self defence if they come under attack, and so this behavior is in many situations justified
Jump to: