4 ms·

"if prevention rather than prosecution is to be our new main goal" I find this increadibly dangerous. Does that mean the police will move against "potential" c

"if prevention rather than prosecution is to be our new main goal" I find this increadibly dangerous. Does that mean the police will move against "potential" crimes? Against people making plans? I hereby jokingly declare that I am planning to steal a cucumber at my local supermarket. Does this make me a goal of preventive action? Did I commit a thought-crime? 1984 and Minority Report come to mind when people say stuff like this.

analog 14y ago
Conspiracy is already a crime. Your cucumber example wouldn't attract a response because nobody actually cares enough to prosecute it. For example if your cucumber was made of solid goal then you would become a target of preventive action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
- Derbasti 14y ago
  Luckily, this applies mostly to English speaking countries. The rest of the world seems to require some actual criminal action for prosecution.
  - analog 14y ago
    Lucky for people planning crimes I guess, unlucky for the rest of us. Edit: Your claim that this is limited to mainly English speaking countries is not even true. "Most nations prosecute inchoate acts (such as conspiracy and incitation) in their domestic criminal law." https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/jilp/articles/1-1_Stenson_Thomas.pdf https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/jilp/articles/1-1_Ste... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense
    - Derbasti 14y ago
      As far as I can see, most jurisdictions require some action beyond mere thought or talk. Two guys talking over their beers at a bar is not enough. At least that is what the German Wikipedia is saying about European law.
      - analog 14y ago
        Well sure, you'd have to actually be seriously planning to commit the crime to be prosecuted for it.
- A1kmm 14y ago
  IANAL, but I believe that in most jurisdictions conspiracy requires two or more co-conspirators (i.e. the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime means two or more people agree or plan for a crime to be committed). Attempting to commit a crime is also a crime in many jurisdictions, and only requires one person - maybe a prosecutor could convince a court that Derbasti was going to steal something, as demonstrated in a HN comment, but the plan was foiled. Also, perhaps it is a threat - if other comments could be used to show that he/she was threatening the local supermarket unless they do something, perhaps charges for threatening could be filed.
  - analog 14y ago
    Yup, conspiracy was just the first example that came to mind. The actual class of crimes is inchoate offences (found after some brief googling). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense
hermannj314 14y ago
Crimes like "it is illegal to drive and use a mobile device" and "it is illegal to drive while intoxicated" are meant to be preventative. You are committing a crime merely by creating the risk that something bad could happen. But where does it stop? If, hypothetically, children raised by a single mother are more likely to commit violent crimes, then it ought to be illegal to be a single mother. That sort of law, which seems crazy, seems to be along the same thought process of why you shouldn't use your cell phone while driving.
- cmdkeen 14y ago
  Because it comes down to balancing rights, and determining which ones are absolute, and how we weight other rights in relation to each other. So the right to a family life (to use the EU term) is held to be very important, and thus the bar to sterilisation/removing children is really high. The right to use a phone whilst driving on a publicly maintained road is not. Especially as the public's right not to have a 1 ton+ vehicle travelling at speed driving in an impaired fashion is quite important. Plus it is about mitigating harms. Handsfree kits are allowed for example. The exact thing happens in this case. His right to be silent or have a lawyer present is not infringed. His right to be informed whilst being asked questions relating to public safety about future threats is being infringed, because society shouldn't have to choose between future potential victims and prosecuting an individual for crimes already committed.

analog 14y ago

Conspiracy is already a crime. Your cucumber example wouldn't attract a response because nobody actually cares enough to prosecute it. For example if your cucumber was made of solid goal then you would become a target of preventive action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

Derbasti 14y ago
Luckily, this applies mostly to English speaking countries. The rest of the world seems to require some actual criminal action for prosecution.
- analog 14y ago
  Lucky for people planning crimes I guess, unlucky for the rest of us. Edit: Your claim that this is limited to mainly English speaking countries is not even true. "Most nations prosecute inchoate acts (such as conspiracy and incitation) in their domestic criminal law." https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/jilp/articles/1-1_Stenson_Thomas.pdf https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/jilp/articles/1-1_Ste... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense
  - Derbasti 14y ago
    As far as I can see, most jurisdictions require some action beyond mere thought or talk. Two guys talking over their beers at a bar is not enough. At least that is what the German Wikipedia is saying about European law.
    - analog 14y ago
      Well sure, you'd have to actually be seriously planning to commit the crime to be prosecuted for it.
A1kmm 14y ago
IANAL, but I believe that in most jurisdictions conspiracy requires two or more co-conspirators (i.e. the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime means two or more people agree or plan for a crime to be committed). Attempting to commit a crime is also a crime in many jurisdictions, and only requires one person - maybe a prosecutor could convince a court that Derbasti was going to steal something, as demonstrated in a HN comment, but the plan was foiled. Also, perhaps it is a threat - if other comments could be used to show that he/she was threatening the local supermarket unless they do something, perhaps charges for threatening could be filed.
- analog 14y ago
  Yup, conspiracy was just the first example that came to mind. The actual class of crimes is inchoate offences (found after some brief googling). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense

hermannj314 14y ago

Crimes like "it is illegal to drive and use a mobile device" and "it is illegal to drive while intoxicated" are meant to be preventative. You are committing a crime merely by creating the risk that something bad could happen. But where does it stop? If, hypothetically, children raised by a single mother are more likely to commit violent crimes, then it ought to be illegal to be a single mother. That sort of law, which seems crazy, seems to be along the same thought process of why you shouldn't use your cell phone while driving.

cmdkeen 14y ago
Because it comes down to balancing rights, and determining which ones are absolute, and how we weight other rights in relation to each other. So the right to a family life (to use the EU term) is held to be very important, and thus the bar to sterilisation/removing children is really high. The right to use a phone whilst driving on a publicly maintained road is not. Especially as the public's right not to have a 1 ton+ vehicle travelling at speed driving in an impaired fashion is quite important. Plus it is about mitigating harms. Handsfree kits are allowed for example. The exact thing happens in this case. His right to be silent or have a lawyer present is not infringed. His right to be informed whilst being asked questions relating to public safety about future threats is being infringed, because society shouldn't have to choose between future potential victims and prosecuting an individual for crimes already committed.