Can Crime be Considered Moral - Essay Example

Can Crime be Considered Moral Society assumes that all crimes are immoral, especially those that hurt or somehow impact others negatively. Federal, State and City laws are established to protect others from becoming victims. Again, society assumes that laws are established to protect victims and punish criminals. Most citizens assume that everyone who comes to trial has acted immorally, though we are supposed to assume that someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” However, there are more than a few citizens who have committed crimes, acting out of concern for others or in protecting loved ones. To determine whether a crime is necessarily immoral, assumptions must be made. The first assumption is that all laws determine what consists of a crime based on harm or damage to others. The second is that all crimes hurt or bring harm to others, whether individuals, groups, corporations or other living things. The third assumption is that each citizen views harm in the same manner. Various cultural beliefs, ethical theories and value systems make it impossible for all citizens to each and every crime as moral or immoral. One who believes that murder is wrong, regardless of circumstances, may view an individual who has hurt or killed an intruder as wrong. Another may view self defense as allowable and justifiable. A serial murderer may be seen as evil or completely lacking in morals. Many in our society wonder how such an individual “can remain steadfastly convinced of his own moral superiority and show not even the slightest glimmer of remorse.” (Silber). Most of society does not understand how the serial murderer can feel that way. Yet, the members of society will accept that “the five-year-old Iraqi girl who was killed by the same bombs that killed al-Zarqawi” was necessary to accomplish a goal. Murder is considered immoral, especially when victims are young and innocent. “Surely it is better for the world that men should be right from wrong motives than that they would do wrong with the best intentions. What concerns society is conduct, not opinion: if only our actions are Can Crime be Considered Moral 2 just and good, it matters not a straw to others whether our opinions are mistaken” (Frazer, 1909). What Sir James Frazer alludes to is that even if we feel terrorism is wrong and those who commit such acts should be brought to justice, our views do not give us the freedom to necessarily act upon them. In this case, our actions in killing al-Zarqawi and killing innocent bystanders in the process is not acceptable, because we feel he should be punished. But many argue that the end justifies the means. Frazer’s statement then means that killing al-Zarqawi is considered just and good, even if we believe that the death of an innocent bystander makes it too risky. In this example, it is the context in which killing takes place that determines whether or not many citizens think a crime has been committed in taking the young girl’s life. Jack Kevorkian, with his assisted suicide methods for those suffering from painful, incurable illness attempted to provide peace, comfort and dignity. While his intentions were not harmful in nature, they were against the law. Every time he assisted someone in ending their life, he committed a crime. Admittedly, there are some illnesses which cause great pain and suffering in advanced stages. There are those who believe that ending their lives is better than continuing to live in pain, or in forcing the rest of society to pay for their expensive care. “In April 1991, the Hemlock Society published Derek Humphreys book, Final Exit, which details the specifics of suicide. The book soon became the best seller in the advice category on the New York Times list” (Elliott, 1992). Though assisted suicide may be illegal, many consider it acceptable to end someone’s ongoing suffering. Dr. Hazel Biggs, one of the UK’s euthanasia experts, explains polls that “show overwhelming public support for law changes that would make it easier for terminally ill patients to request medical help to shorten their lives” (Doward, 2004). Public opinion seems to Can Crime be Considered Moral 3 support efforts that help the ill end their lives when suffering is severe and ongoing. Assisting the ill in ending pain and suffering is currently considered a crime, though considered acceptable, and therefore moral, to many people in society. There are many documented cases of individuals suffering from various cancers or debilitating diseases who have ended their lives by overdosing on tranquilizers or pain medication. In 2002, an Australian woman ended her life by using a new ‘Aussie Exit Bag’ designed by Doctor Philip Nitschke. While the mechanism of the device does not seem foolproof, the woman was willing to take the risk as she “had said she could no longer bear her horrific, pain-ridden existence” (Mercer, 2002). While many people consider suicide immoral, they likely have not lived with the same kind of pain the woman had. Laws are meant to punish those who commit crimes causing pain and suffering. Physical human suffering is not lessened by the fact that it may have natural causes. There is no punishment for natural causes of suffering, though this fact should not dictate what society deems as moral or acceptable suffering. Those who argue against assisting others or even allowing others to end suffering believe that it is a result of a higher power or destiny that should be allowed. The problem is that the person suffering may not believe or think the same way. Moral relativism is the concept that truth is different for each individual, based on what is considered right and wrong. According to this philosophy one individual can not determine how much suffering another has endured. Although moral relativism is no longer widely accepted as a moral view, it shows how individuals can differ in their views of who should endure suffering and who should not. “All laws force someones viewpoint,” as Koukl points out. Laws can not represent everyone’s point of view. Therefore, committing a crime such as assisting to end the life of an ill and suffering Can Crime be Considered Moral 4 Individual is not necessarily immoral. This depends on the views of both the ill person and the person assisting. A very strong example of a moral crime is that of sheltering or assisting Jewish families during Hitler’s reign. According to the laws he enacted, Jews did not deserve to live. Anyone helping them could be punished by death. Most in society would agree that helping Jewish families would be moral, though criminal. Western nations have not had to deal with such a dictator since then, though those who live under such rule might face similar dilemmas. There are those who would not take part in such actions, due to a rigid adherence to law as the only morality for which actions should be based. Many more failed to act out of fear of punishment or death, with morality having little influence on actions. Often children are taught that just because others behave a in a particular manner or act in a certain way, does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Ironically, those children whose parents allow certain actions because others are permitted see little value in doing what is right, regardless of laws. Their morality becomes one of the popular action to take. Children are often shunned due to race or color of their skin. While children of different or mixed races are becoming more common and more accepted, racist still exists. Children who are not taught tolerance and acceptance might grow up to work as legislators or city officials who help shape laws that discriminate or unduly penalize specific groups. Children who are taught tolerance and acceptance will be more likely to help those who are at a disadvantage, often ignoring laws and risking punishment. Each might say they have behaved morally. One may claim that allowing the popular majority to determine what is right and wrong provides the most certain standard of morality. Can Crime be Considered Moral 5 Another may claim that doing what is fair and just is the most moral, regardless of law. Though both may consider themselves moral and just, the one who is willing to go against current standards might also work toward legislation that changes laws or standards. such as those who worked to free slaves and those who stood up for their civil rights. “For some, if the action gives a positive result, they consider the action a morally good thing to do. In other words, because it produced good consequences, it was the right thing to do” (Levine, 2003). Laws are not always designed to produce good consequences. They are sometimes enacted to protect the resources and prevent threats of losing resources of those who possess them. This was the case when slavery was legal and freeing slaves or helping them in any manner was illegal. A particular law in the UK currently permits police to arrest and imprison anyone who is caught within 5 miles of what appears to be a “rave.” Section 65 states that “the police need not have actually come across a “rave”, or have received complaints, for such a law to apply” (Hammerton, 2002). It would then be difficult for a young adult who was on the way to the local market to prove innocence. Morality in doing every day mundane tasks and keeping to one’s self would be considered criminal, it the person decided to shop for food or household items at the time of the supposed rave. Ironically, being moral and unaware of any such activity nearby could have legal consequences. In fact, the most moral action possible, other than locking one’s doors and going to bed, would still result in a crime. This is an extreme example. However, laws and policies are often adopted based on fear and overreaction to specific problems, with little or no moral basis. Many practices and policies go beyond just arresting or imprisoning the innocent. They can actually encourage crime. In such cases, preventing a crime might also be Can Crime be Considered Moral 6 A crime itself, depending on whether property was destroyed or whether laws were ignored. Security and surveillance are so common in Europe that many residents do not even notice. Most require monitoring by security personnel to ensure that no crime is being committed. Risks in providing surveillance are increase in hate crimes, stalking and possibly sex crimes, by those who have access to surveillance equipment. It is easier to spot someone who is racially different in a large department store with a surveillance camera. It is easier to locate members of the opposite sex with video monitors. Suppose a co-worker noticed a particular security person’s peculiar activities of watching and perhaps following someone he or she had seen on camera. That co-worker then decided to destroy or deactivate the particular monitor or camera that was used. Such action could be considered moral, in preventing the stalking and possible injury of an innocent store patron. At the same time, destruction or tampering with the equipment would be a punishable crime. Most people would argue that other options were available, like speaking with a supervisor or talking to the police. Without evidence of intent, it would be hard to prove the person watching the monitor was acting in a harmful manner, so the co-worker’s complaint might not be taken seriously. Serious crimes previously mentioned are not the only legal offenses that may be justifiable under certain circumstances. Medics and fire fighters race through busy intersections and down roadways to save lives. Such disregard for traffic signals and laws is considered legal for official government services. In some rural areas, such services are not available or take too much time, when a life is in jeopardy. A spouse, neighbor or other good Samaritan may realize that driving someone in need to emergency care is the best option. The person has the best intentions in saving a life, though they may disobey speed and other traffic laws to get the other person to appropriate medical care. However, it is only considered worthwhile if another driver or pedestrian is not Can Crime be Considered Moral 7 injured in the process. Intentional disregard of law in order to save a life may be acceptable. There are times when disregard of law is not acceptable, though Bill Lawson believes that some citizens who commit crimes do so because they have been conditioned that way. Lawson talks about social contracts in which citizens obey laws in exchange for protections such as peace and security. He contends that “important features of this two-way bargain are not kept for poor inner-city residents. His reading of social contract literature leads him to the unsettling conclusion that the fear of being a victim of crime for many urban residents releases them from an obligation to obedience.” While the actions of poor inner city residents may not be moral, they will not see them as immoral. Those who are supposed to protect them have failed their moral obligations, so such actions must be acceptable. What’s even more difficult to explain is that a neighborhood child who steals a snack or a piece of fruit from a local market is punished more harshly than someone who commits a white collar crime, like embezzlement or fraud. A corporation may have neglected to provide proper safety measures or equipment, resulting in a serious injury or death of an employee. Though it is doubtful the child will know about white collar crime, a parent or adult may, and therefore excuse the child’s relatively minor crime. Adults who influence the child may have been victims or personally know victims of white collar crime or negligence. The child then comes to believe that stealing is morally acceptable when adults regard the behavior as acceptable. British law such as the newly enacted Corporate Manslaughter Act allows “the state to prosecute a corporation or partnership for the crime of manslaughter if the organization causes the death of a person as the result of its "gross" breach of a duty owed under the law of negligence” (Sebok, 2007). This is not a quick solution to urban crime, but does send a message to adults that corporations should also be held accountable. The Act Can Crime be Considered Moral 8 urges the corporate sector of society to hold up its end of the social contract. This social contract become less clear though, in instances where the child is surrounded by social injustice. Stealing food for a young friend who has not had a meal in a few days may be an extremely moral action. Committing a crime or taking part in crime may go well beyond what is considered moral. Some may act out of a sense of duty or obligation. For those who help others escape execution or slavery there is often a sense of what must be done, not just what can be done, in an effort to preserve human life. There is little concern for consequences of committing crime in such instances. This opposes moral egoism, which is the philosophy that one should do good for others only if it does not harm the individual. Further, it makes the moral claim that we should always act out of self-interest, even when this harms others” (Mellon). It is argue that society today embraces this philosophy and that self-preservation at all costs helps to influence laws and policies. However, if this were strictly true, assault, theft and other actions that harm others would not be crimes. Most of society has developed a sense of wrong in hurting others. It is law and policy that has not been well thought out that brings about the necessity to act in a moral fashion while committing a crime. Hitler’s actions and the formation of the Nazi party was very well organized. The actions might be seen as well thought out. However, the egoism involved in determining that one race should be superior and the only one allowable in society was inherently faulty. The law in the UK surrounding raves was not very well though out. One wonders if the logistics of arresting multiple parties or drivers because of close proximity to a supposed activity was taken into consideration. In realizing that many crimes in the past have been moral, it becomes easier to understand why so much debate, thought and criticism goes into political processes and Can Crime be Moral 9 enactment of law. Most of society understands the consequences of making a crime of actions that most view as morally right. Society expects protection from certain actions. Though there are situations where crime is considered moral, those situations today are rare and generally addressed through peaceful forums. Society has further expectations that as it behaves morally, so should corporations and those who run them. It is only when laws or policies bring harm to others that most citizens justify crime as moral. Can Crime be Considered Moral 10 References BBC News. (2006). Where does the current Law Stand. June 21 ed. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4350259.stm. Carmical, C. The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible? Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://www.carmical.net/articles/deathpenalty.html. Doward, J. (2004). Revealed: full scale of euthanasia in Britain. The Observer. Elliott, C. (1992). Dying rites: the ethics of euthanasia. New Scientist. Retrieved August 12, 2007 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13418264.700.html. Hammerton, J. (2002). Prime Recent and Proposed Attacks on Civil Rights in the United Kingdom. Retrieved August 12, 2007 from http://www.magnacartaplus.org/civil-liberties/attacks.htm. Koukl, G. (2005). What is Moral Relativism. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=229. Lawson, B. Morality of Law overview. Retrieved August 12, 2007 from http://paulsjusticepage.com/cjethics/1-moralityoflaw.htm. Levine, P. (2003). What is moral. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://www.peterlevine.ws/mt/archives/2003/03/what-is-moral-p.html. Mellon, J. Ethics Notes: Part One. Retrieved August 12, 2007 from http://www2.shastacollege.edu/philosophy/EN1.htm. Mercer, P. (2002). ‘Suicide bags’ launched in Australia. BBC News. Aug. 20 ed. Retrieved August 13, 2007 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2205081.stm. Ross, K. (2006). Morality, Justice and Judicial Moralism. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://www.friesian.com/moral-2.htm. Sebok, A. (2007). The U.K.s "Corporate Manslaughter" Statute: British Versus American Approaches to Making Firms Responsible for Deaths Resulting from Gross Negligence. Retrieved August 13, 2007 from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20070731.html. Silber, A. (2006). The Missing Moral Center: Murdering the Innocent. Retrieved August 13, 2007 from http://powerofnarrative.com/2006/10/missing-moral-center-murdering.html. Read More