(no subject)

[blorky.livejournal.com]

So I've heard libertarians/anarchists advocate the position that certain behaviors shouldn't be criminalized unless they do harm. This has been used to protest everything from DUI stops to speeding stops to drug possession/trade criminalizations to chemical dumping restrictions until harm is demonstrated.

The story of these two guys got me thinking. They are suspected of performing a dry run for a plane bomb.

If you are in the school that says you shouldn't prosecute/criminalize behavior that can potentially lead to harm, but rather only the behavior that actually harms, would you a) criminalize conspiracy (for fraud, for treason, for theft, for assault) or b) prevent people from bringing explosives on a plane?


(nonsense tag in 3...2...1...)

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I think most of them still would criminalize attempt, as roughly defined as "taking a substantial step towards the completion of a given criminal act." At least, I did when I held to that position.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm in the school that applies logic and reason and understands there is a difference between charges of conspiracy to commit a crime and bringing explosives that were never properly used on a plane and say, banning booze and porn because the wannabe banner feels his or her squick should be enforced on everyone else.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Who talked about banning booze and porn?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Remember the Prohibition era?

These days the successors of the previous naive bastards are now arguing that banning porn will cure society's ills. You've got the inheritors of Temperance Feminism together with the Fundamentalists. A match made in Hell, that one.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do. It's irrelevant to the question posed in my OP.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My point is that anyone who equates the two is a dumbass who doesn't realize the difference between actions that affect individuals and something like bombings and conspiracies to commit crimes, which affect a hell of a lot more than individuals.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Equate *which* two? You substituted two behaviors that are different than the items I cited.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Even though underlankers is not being totally clear, I think you're being a bit dense here too.

A: This has been used to protest everything from DUI stops to speeding stops to drug possession/trade criminalizations to chemical dumping restrictions until harm is demonstrated.

B: would you a) criminalize conspiracy (for fraud, for treason, for theft, for assault) or b) prevent people from bringing explosives on a plane?

A and B are not equivalent due to scale and who it affects and how it affects them.

Comparing B(a) and B(b) there is also a distinction where (b) is an attempt to do something whereas (a) is not.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Fair point, although I don't conceed that the difference in scale constitutes a difference in kind particularly when talking about, say, chemical dumping.

How would you answer the various questions posed (if you self-define the way I described)?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

A. is an accurate assessment. Harm needs to be demonstrated. B(a) I would not criminalize. There is no way to prove that just because people talked about something together that they were really helping anything. B(b) is attempted murder, which I'm fine with being criminal.

If someone else provided the explosives or fake plane tickets or some other material support, then they are an accessory, period. There is no need to criminalize "conspiracy". Conspiracy is a made-up crime to charge people that you "know" are associated with the main criminal but you can't really prove that they did anything. Yes, it means that sometimes you'll not be able to charge the guy who planned everything and then had flunkies carry everything out, but I don't care. It's the same principle that it's better to have a few criminals not get caught than it is to put an innocent man in jail.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I was pointing out that his dichotomy is false and that there have been attempts to regulate drugs, which is one of the things he referred to in the OP and nobody will ever call Prohibition a success except Al Capone.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, but you weren't being very effective.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> Yes, I do. It's irrelevant to the question posed in my OP.

Uhm... Really?

If I can restate the original subject matter, I might say "are considerations of potential harm, rather than actual harm, sufficient reason for legal action?"

Calls to ban vice, be it drinking, porn, video games, etc. are almost always aided and abetted by assertions of the possible future harm it does (porn inspires rape, video games, violence, etc.)

Inherent in the discussion is how tenuous can a causal chain be between behavior and an ostensibly related harm, and still mandate legal action? A natural part of the discussion is exploring boundary conditions. Pointing a loaded gun at someone (but not shooting it) might be at one side of the spectrum, and excessive T.V. use might be at the other.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"Inherent in the discussion is how tenuous can a causal chain be between behavior and an ostensibly related harm, and still mandate legal action?"

Thank you for stating it better than I did, and expanding on under's comments in a way that I could follow.

I do think this devolves to arguments about when differences in scale amount to differences in kind, but don't believe that most people have built out those distinctions precisely or consistently. I'm curious to hear how and where different people draw the line.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And of course there's this:

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/a/18thamendment.htm

[http://users.livejournal.com/aviation_/]

...Attempt is a crime for sure. So is conspiracy. This is not on the same level as, well... anything else you suggested. There may be a few who disagree, but I think you'll get a lot of this response.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Stating that only (successful) acts can be considered criminal is silly.

Conspiracy is a crime because of your (demonstrated) intent to do harm.

"Attempted" crimes are crimes because of your (demonstrated) intent do do harm.

Whether you are a good enough to pull it off only matters in the punishment phase of your trial.