Liberty's Light

A Christian forum dedicated to the discussion of how a nation based entirely off of biblical principles ought to be like. We believe that Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, and that God's righteous hand is necessary for the blessing of any nation.
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Prevention

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Prevention   Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:23 am

Greetings,

Does government have a place in prevention of crime? Historically, efforts to do this have resulted in a loss of liberty by those who are righteous, and hardly slowed down crime. A prime example is gun control. Is it possible and biblical for government to try to prevent crime outside of being consistent in its punishment?

  • How can government prevent crime?
  • Is it its responsibility to do so outside of punishing it?


With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Peter G.
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 209
Age : 24
Location : Where ever a debate is, I'm in the midst
Registration date : 09/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:32 am

How can government prevent crime?
Really, there is no perfect way to prevent crime. Though you can set up laws to "enforce" the laws. However, if people want to get around the laws, then they will find a way around the law. so really, unless they agree with the law, the law won't really help.

Is it its responsibility to do so outside of punishing it?
Yes, the Government should help prevent crime by setting up laws. However, the Church could actually help with the law setting process. The Church could check the accuratecy of the law we are making. (purely hypothetical here)

just my two cents! Very Happy

Peter
Back to top Go down
View user profile
TaylorSandbek
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 28
Age : 24
Location : O'mally land, the state of Socialism
Registration date : 13/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:43 pm

No, government should only discourage crime with punishment for the crime... the prevention of crime gets into stuff like keeping people's every moves righteous so they don't go down a slippery slope, or banning things that could possibly be used for crime - not the governments place. These are individual decisions and responsibilities, they are in the scope of the individual's authority, not the government. We would have thoughtcrime and the like if government could prevent crime...

Bottom line - Government is there to discourage and punish crime, not prevent it.

_________________
Never give up, never give in, never compromise, play for the win
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 24
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:40 pm

How can government prevent crime?

I think the best way is to let people know that they will be punished for crime. I think this would be more effective if we would look at the Old Testament laws about punishments and try to model more of our laws after those. God, who made those laws, knows exactly what punishments are just and fitting to the situation.

Is it its responsibility to do so outside of punishing it?

If there is another good way to prevent crime that doesn't unnecessarily cut back on freedoms, I'm open to it. However, I can't think of many times that has happened (except maybe the USA PATRIOT Act? I don't know a whole lot about that, but from what I know, I expect it could be helpful in preventing terrorism). Prohibition was a good example of a time when prevention didn't work. People found ways to get alcohol illegally and bootleggers made a lot of money.
Personally, I don't think extensive gun control is very helpful. I think criminals will find illegal ways to get guns, but law-abiding citizens will not be able to defend themselves.
The government's attempts to prevent crime have also resulted in trying to control "hate-speech," which can become an attack on a Biblical worldview. I'm all for any attempts to prevent crime if they don't violate a basic right, but I think it can easily get way to extreme.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Hannah Marie
Moderator
Moderator


Female Number of posts : 99
Age : 25
Registration date : 15/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:54 am

How can government prevent crime?

The government can prevent crime by simply setting the laws as stated in the Bible and enforcing them. When the government passes laws that have not been stated in the Bible, it is over-stepping it's boundaries and infringing on the free-will of the people.

Is it its responsibility to do so outside of punishing it?

No. People have mentioned gun control, patriot act, and prohibition. In the end, these laws are not really preventing crime; they are trying to prevent the path to crime. Guns can lead to murder, no patriot act can lead to murder, and allowance of alcohol can lead to adultery, murder, disrespect of parents and a whole list of other things. These items are all covered already in the Ten Commandments and the punishment stated in God’s Word. The government's purpose is to solely punish crime or disobedience of God's Word but it is the people's choice whether or not they will follow His path.

In Christ,
Hannah

_________________
If you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding; and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. Proverbs 2:1-5
Back to top Go down
View user profile
TaylorSandbek
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 28
Age : 24
Location : O'mally land, the state of Socialism
Registration date : 13/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:33 pm

All -

Here is my view on law -
Law is a negative concept. The law should always be preventing injustice from happening. It should never venture to the positive, where it is actually promoting justice - it always stays in the negative of preventing injustice.
But what does prevention really mean in this context? Government cannot feasibly go around to every house in America, establishing security cameras policemen at every corner in order to prevent anything bad from ever happening. That would be an abridgement of our liberty, as well as near to impossible.
I believe that law prevents in the form of punishment. Any more takes away the rights of perfectly normal people to do sane things (carry a gun, for instance), and punishes the majority for the actions of one or two people - i.e, is damaging to freedom.

I conclude that punishment is the only thing which should be done.

_________________
Never give up, never give in, never compromise, play for the win
Back to top Go down
View user profile
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:48 am

I agree with what is being said here, I just have one thought. Can the government prevent the threat of crime? Example: Someone holds another person up with a gun. So far the gunman has not taken or harmed the person's life, liberty, or property in the truest sense. They are only threatening it. The person being held up has full life, though it is being threatened; they have full liberty to do as they please, though this is also being threatened; and all of their property is still theirs untouched, though this too is being threatened. Does the government have the right to step in and arrest the gunman for threatening the crime? By what I read above, you're saying no. The government can only punish crime. Yet, according to our agreed upon definition of crime, they are innocent of felony. I believe that the government can step in to prevent a crime that is being threatened. I don't think they have the jurisdiction to ban guns or anything like that, but once someone is threatening a crime, the government should step in. This means that we either have to revise our definition of crime, or allow the government to prevent threats of crime. What are your thoughts?

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
PeterS.



Male Number of posts : 4
Age : 27
Location : New Jersey
Registration date : 04/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:25 am

Good question, Caleb!

Evil or Very Mad

While intent can be a highly ambiguous area to regulate, I feel that yes, a government should punish a person who intends to, for example, murder someone. If a man points a gun at someone, pulls the trigger, and the gun does not fire, he still meant to kill that person, regardless of whether or not he actually did. A physical act is only the natural outcome of an individual's thoughts; motive need not be manifested physically for it to be present. Perhaps the larger issue we are faced with is how does government objectively punish motive/intention?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:46 am

PeterS. wrote:
Good question, Caleb!

Evil or Very Mad

While intent can be a highly ambiguous area to regulate, I feel that yes, a government should punish a person who intends to, for example, murder someone. If a man points a gun at someone, pulls the trigger, and the gun does not fire, he still meant to kill that person, regardless of whether or not he actually did. A physical act is only the natural outcome of an individual's thoughts; motive need not be manifested physically for it to be present. Perhaps the larger issue we are faced with is how does government objectively punish motive/intention?

Peter,

Despite your use of the devil's advocate format, I agree with you, and thank you for pointing this issue out.

If a murderer runs at you and attempts wildly to stab and kill you, but I stop him, is he any less a murderer for my act of bravery? No. He needs to be tried, sentenced, and executed as a murderer, does he not?

The difference between punishing attempted crime with an intent of crime, and creating regulations in an attempt to prevent crime, is vast, though. The one is a just punishment of the guilty; the other is an attack on the liberties of the innocent.

One good example is gun control. Gun control, besides being economically, logically, and biblically idiotic, is the removal of the liberties of people who have no intent of evil. There are hundreds of Biblical, logical, political, and historical arguments against gun control that I could go into, but I think that that is sufficient for this thread.

What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
PeterS. wrote:
Good question, Caleb!

Evil or Very Mad

While intent can be a highly ambiguous area to regulate, I feel that yes, a government should punish a person who intends to, for example, murder someone. If a man points a gun at someone, pulls the trigger, and the gun does not fire, he still meant to kill that person, regardless of whether or not he actually did. A physical act is only the natural outcome of an individual's thoughts; motive need not be manifested physically for it to be present. Perhaps the larger issue we are faced with is how does government objectively punish motive/intention?

Peter,

Despite your use of the devil's advocate format, I agree with you, and thank you for pointing this issue out.

If a murderer runs at you and attempts wildly to stab and kill you, but I stop him, is he any less a murderer for my act of bravery? No. He needs to be tried, sentenced, and executed as a murderer, does he not?

The difference between punishing attempted crime with an intent of crime, and creating regulations in an attempt to prevent crime, is vast, though. The one is a just punishment of the guilty; the other is an attack on the liberties of the innocent.

One good example is gun control. Gun control, besides being economically, logically, and biblically idiotic, is the removal of the liberties of people who have no intent of evil. There are hundreds of Biblical, logical, political, and historical arguments against gun control that I could go into, but I think that that is sufficient for this thread.

What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

So you agree with the devil? Smile

Scripture please. I don't see it.

Yet.

Von
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
PeterS.



Male Number of posts : 4
Age : 27
Location : New Jersey
Registration date : 04/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:30 am

Ok, here's my attempt to try to explain my thoughts. I suppose there really wasn't a need for the devil's advocate emoticon, but . . . anyway, here's the scripture I can think of that supports the idea of punishment for willful intention to commit a crime:

First, Exodus 21:14 . . .

Quote :
. . . if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death. Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death. Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

Notice that the last commandment, unlike those preceding it, which deal with punishing physical acts of evil, starts to delve into the heart of man. The idea is that what a person thinks in his mind is no different in God's eyes than from what he actually does with his hands. A good illustration of this is Jesus's words in Matthew 5:27-28:

Quote :
You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

There is no distinction between thoughts and actions; they are one and the same. This is why it was written, "man looks at the outward appearances, but God looks at the heart."

Perhaps the larger issue that faces us is how to discern motive/intent and know when to punish it. Any thoughts?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:09 am

Quote :
Notice that the last commandment, unlike those preceding it, which deal with punishing physical acts of evil, starts to delve into the heart of man.

Confused. How does cursing your father and mother... which would require an overt act infront of at least two witnesseses, 'delve into the heart of man'?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
PeterS.



Male Number of posts : 4
Age : 27
Location : New Jersey
Registration date : 04/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:21 am

Because all you are doing is spouting words. You aren't hurting anyone physically, you have committed no physical act that should be punished. You are, however, using your words to convey meaning to an emotion you have inside that, if manifested physically, would be punishable. Anyone have a better way to illustrate this?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:04 pm

PeterS. wrote:
Because all you are doing is spouting words. You aren't hurting anyone physically, you have committed no physical act that should be punished. You are, however, using your words to convey meaning to an emotion you have inside that, if manifested physically, would be punishable. Anyone have a better way to illustrate this?

'Spouting words' is a physical act, it is not 'delving into the heart'. Many crimes involve speech: slander, blasphemy, shouting 'fire' in a theater, perjury, etc.

All crimes come from the feelings in the heart. Murder, adultery, blasphemy...


Quote :
There is no distinction between thoughts and actions; they are one and the same. This is why it was written, "man looks at the outward appearances, but God looks at the heart."

Perhaps the larger issue that faces us is how to discern motive/intent and know when to punish it. Any thoughts?

There is a great distinction between thoughts and actions. It is the purpose of the civil magistrate to punish actions, not thoughts or motives. It is, as you say, God who looks at the heart, and God who punishes us for the actions of our hearts. The civil magistrate should only punish actions.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri May 01, 2009 11:00 am

PeterS. wrote:
Ok, here's my attempt to try to explain my thoughts. I suppose there really wasn't a need for the devil's advocate emoticon, but . . . anyway, here's the scripture I can think of that supports the idea of punishment for willful intention to commit a crime:

First, Exodus 21:14 . . .

Quote :
. . . if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death. Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death. Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

Notice that the last commandment, unlike those preceding it, which deal with punishing physical acts of evil, starts to delve into the heart of man. The idea is that what a person thinks in his mind is no different in God's eyes than from what he actually does with his hands. A good illustration of this is Jesus's words in Matthew 5:27-28:

Quote :
You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

There is no distinction between thoughts and actions; they are one and the same. This is why it was written, "man looks at the outward appearances, but God looks at the heart."

Perhaps the larger issue that faces us is how to discern motive/intent and know when to punish it. Any thoughts?

I disagree with your hermeneutical application of these two verses. I also agree with Mr. Ohlman that the government cannot and has no business punishing the inward thoughts or heart of a person. But, I would not go so far as to say that they can only punish the outward action after the crime is committed. I believe that the government does have the jurisdiction to punish someone who threatens to harm another person's life, liberty, or property. See my example in the above post. I can kind of see the motive/intent argument with some situational ethics.

For instance: with guns. I believe responsible citizens should be allowed to carry guns. They are allowed to protect themselves and to some extent others with it. Example: a gunman enters a college campus and begins shooting. An armed citizen should be able to use his gun to warn and even wound the gunman in such a way that he stops shooting people. However, this does mean that the responsible citizen is "threatening," in a sense, the gunman's life and liberty. Should the responsible citizen be guilty under the law at all, even if they had to wound the gunman so he would stop shooting? In a sense you're looking at motive/intent. I do not believe that the "ends justify the means" or that "all's well that ends well." But I do believe that the responsible citizen did the right thing and shouldn't be punished the same way the reckless gunman would be. But how does this fit into law? Should we just leave it up to the judge to decide? Is it OK to threaten or even harm someone's life, liberty, or property if it is the right thing to do? How does the government determine by the law what situation is the right thing? Is this all making sense, or do I need to try to restate it?

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri May 01, 2009 11:13 am

Well Caleb, I am confused Smile

I can shoot someone who is threatening me. That is 'self defense'. However I don't get to do it because of his thoughts, but because of his actions. He has to take threatening actions, or make threatening words. These lead me to be free to shoot him.

Even the government might be able to punish someone for their actions or words, but in this case I think you have shown why they do not need to. In self defense, the populace can handle that themselves.

But if someone shoots at me and misses, they are not guilty of murder, they missed. God preserved them from that sin and crime.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri May 01, 2009 1:00 pm

von wrote:
Well Caleb, I am confused Smile

I can shoot someone who is threatening me. That is 'self defence'. However I don't get to do it because of his thoughts, but because of his actions. He has to take threatening actions, or make threatening words. These lead me to be free to shoot him.

Even the government might be able to punish someone for their actions or words, but in this case I think you have shown why they do not need to. In self defense, the populace can handle that themselves.

But if someone shoots at me and misses, they are not guilty of murder, they missed. God preserved them from that sin and crime.

Agreed (I think.) This is a very thin line and one that is hard to discuss. (I'm not sure if we're drifting off of topic again or not.) I think the government can prosecute those who take, harm, or threaten someone's life, liberty, or property. The judge should decide if the person is guilty of doing anything wrong. You can't penalize thoughts like you said though. The person who shoots but misses you can still be tried, not for murder, but attempted murder. They attempted to wrongly harm someone's life, thus they would be guilty under law.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 24
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Sat May 02, 2009 8:59 am

I just got a pm from Jay about this post and where we should go to stay on topic. Here is what he said:

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
the question about whether an obvious intent of a crime (or a threat) is or can be punishable as a crime is not germane to the subject of prevention. The prevention that I had in mind when I started the topic (I did start it, I think...) was when the government tries to stop everybody from doing something, whether they are doing or intending to do a crime or not, in the name of preventing crime. So the current discussion is off-topic, and more directly pertains to the thread on defining crime. However, I think that we can bend the rules a bit in this case.

So we will address both prevention on a large scale, that of preventing everyone from doing something, and prevention on a smaller scale, that being what we have been discussing in regards to circumstantial ethics and intent. But first, we need to determine the large scale prevention.

Remember: The original questions were-
Quote :
Is it possible and biblical for government to try to prevent crime outside of being consistent in its punishment?

How can government prevent crime?
Is it its responsibility to do so outside of punishing it?

My thought is no, the government shouldn't prevent everyone from doing something that is not addressed in the constitutional law or case applications. If something does need prevention on a large scale, then the judges should meet to make a case application. However, this could only be if the thing they are making a case application for threatens or harms someone's life, liberty, or property itself. Example: The act of citizens owning and caring guns does not itself threaten or harm other people's life, liberty, or property. Therefore, the government shouldn't prevent it. However, lighting a cigarette in a gas station does threaten people's life, liberty, or property. Therefore, the government should be able to prevent this. (In fact, smoking is known to cause lung cancer which does take away from people's life. So, the government should be able to make a case application to ban smoking. Smoking is so threatening to people's life that one of my relatives actually died from lung cancer though he never smoked simply because he worked with people who did.) I hope this all makes sense. Let me know if I need to clarify.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Sat May 02, 2009 9:45 am

Quote :
However, this could only be if the thing they are making a case application for threatens or harms someone's life, liberty, or property itself

It is amusing to me the way you keep coming back to this completely non-Scriptural set of classifications.

You say:

Quote :
no, the government shouldn't prevent everyone from doing something that is not addressed in the constitutional law or case applications.

Change this to: No law should be enforced that is not written in Gods Holy word.

Case applications merely take that Holy Law and apply it to a specific application. So, for example, Gods Law says:

Code:
Deu 5:19  Neither shalt thou steal.


Suppose I take some of Calebs words and post them to my blog, without permission. A judge would have to decide if that was 'stealing'. And if he did decide I had 'stolen' he would have to look at the rest of the law and decide what kind of restitution or punishment was due for that particular kind of crime.

This then will serve as 'prevention' for others (or myself) to do that again.

If the judge, on the other hand, decided that that is not theft. If he decides that that was not stealing, that Caleb, by posting his words in public 'gave them away'... then I won't be prevented from doing it again, altho Caleb might be discouraged from posting things again.

But until and unless I actually violate, or am thought to have violated, on of Gods actual laws, no civil action is warranted under Gods Law.


(NB: No I did not post any of Calebs words without his permission Smile )
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 24
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Sun May 03, 2009 6:38 pm

What about interrogating criminals/would-be criminals about future crimes they or their friends plan to do? I heard that by waterboarding the mastermind of 9/11 we were able to prevent a similar attack on Los Angelas. This sounds like a good thing to me. (By the way, I heard that waterboarding techniques are used to train U.S. soldiers, and yet people are complaining that they were used on two high-profile terrorists to save LA!?) This is kind of a method of prevention. What do you think?

_________________
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6: 12)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Mon May 04, 2009 3:25 am

Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
What about interrogating criminals/would-be criminals about future crimes they or their friends plan to do? I heard that by waterboarding the mastermind of 9/11 we were able to prevent a similar attack on Los Angelas. This sounds like a good thing to me. (By the way, I heard that waterboarding techniques are used to train U.S. soldiers, and yet people are complaining that they were used on two high-profile terrorists to save LA!?) This is kind of a method of prevention. What do you think?

Investigating a suspected crime, whether committed yet or not, as long as it does not hamper the liberties and properties of innocent individuals, would not be the kind of prevention that is bad, I would think. I am not sure exactly what waterboarding is, though.

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 56
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Mon May 04, 2009 7:09 am

Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
What about interrogating criminals/would-be criminals about future crimes they or their friends plan to do? I heard that by waterboarding the mastermind of 9/11 we were able to prevent a similar attack on Los Angelas. This sounds like a good thing to me. (By the way, I heard that waterboarding techniques are used to train U.S. soldiers, and yet people are complaining that they were used on two high-profile terrorists to save LA!?) This is kind of a method of prevention. What do you think?

I would rule thusly in this situation:

If a judge is convinced that the criminals are actually right now in the process of committing a crime... conspiracy to murder, kidnapping, etc. Then any and all necessary physical actions against them are warranted, including torture, executions, etc.

Example: A man tells authorities that he has hidden a girl he has kidnapped, and she is going to suffocate if they don't give him a million dollars and fly him out of the country.

He is right now engaging in kidnapping and murder by not revealing her location. That 'not revealing' is an integral part of his kidnapping and murder. Therefore I would authorize whatever torture necessary to get him to reveal her location.

After we rescued the girl, he would be executed.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Mon May 25, 2009 8:55 am

Hmmm...

I am still not really getting a positive response about a restrictive law that affects everyone, not just criminals or suspected criminals. That is not torture. It is bureaucracy. Are we agreed that the civil magistrates cannot control everyone to try to prevent someone from committing a crime?

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 24
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Mon May 25, 2009 3:07 pm

I think so. There may be situations that we have not yet considered, but I can't think of any situation where it would be okay for the civil magistrate to restrict everyone in order to prevent a crime that most of them are not committing.

Although, on second thought, we have rules that you're not allowed to carry guns into airplanes. I think this makes sense. Do you think this falls into the category you are talking about? Maybe we can allow private airlines to make these rules, and the customers can fly on whatever airline they feel safest on?

_________________
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6: 12)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 27
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Tue May 26, 2009 2:15 am

Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
I think so. There may be situations that we have not yet considered, but I can't think of any situation where it would be okay for the civil magistrate to restrict everyone in order to prevent a crime that most of them are not committing.

Although, on second thought, we have rules that you're not allowed to carry guns into airplanes. I think this makes sense. Do you think this falls into the category you are talking about? Maybe we can allow private airlines to make these rules, and the customers can fly on whatever airline they feel safest on?

Yes, that is the category that I am talking about.

Government should leave this to the private airlines, which is well within their (the airlines) prerogative to do. It is also well outside of the government's, though. In America, it is even unconstitutional.

The principle would be this: the civil magistrate can only punish crime that has been proven to have occurred and it can only punish the criminal. Stated that way, it seems pretty obvious. What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Prevention   

Back to top Go down
 
Prevention
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Liberty's Light :: Archives :: Discussion archives-
Jump to: