3 ms·

Change a few words and see if it still makes sense: what is the solution if a person uses their garage to make things for criminal purposes? If they get out o

Change a few words and see if it still makes sense: what is the solution if a person uses their garage to make things for criminal purposes? If they get out of prison, do you still allow them to have a garage?

freehunter 13y ago
See that's not the same though, unless the garage directly led to making the crime possible. Change a few words and see if it still makes sense: what if the person used their life for criminal purposes? If they get out of prison do you still allow them to have life? A garage is a place, not a tool.
- MindTwister 13y ago
  What about changing it then... If I build a detonator using a soldering iron and spare parts from a radio, should I be banned from ever owning a soldering iron... or a radio
  - ansgri 13y ago
    The main difference is in the scale: you can't solder a thousand detonators before the police notices you. With a fast printing technology, you can.
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      Your argument goes the other way. If someone with a printer can do the malicious thing quickly then prohibiting ownership of the printer is useless, because someone prohibited from owning it could just borrow one from someone not so prohibited for a very short period of time, do the crime, and return it without being detected. You might as well just prohibit the act of making detonators, because you'll never catch one without the other. Prohibiting ownership of the printers will just prevent those trying to reform themselves from using their skill in using printers to make legitimate things that benefit society.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  It's exactly the same thing. What defines a crime is intention. For instance, firing a gun is not a crime per se. Or in the case of the United States, even building one isn't illegal, since no one made a law to make it so. [1] On the other hand, attempt to shoot, shooting or killing someone, are all possibly crimes, depending if there's intention and the circumstances (e.g., self-defense). So in your example, if someone makes materials for political enemies, first you need to prove intention or connection to the crimes committed by these parties (I'm assuming you don't mean illegal/controlled materials here). Then, when this person is sentenced, the judge can rule about restricting access to these materials anymore (for instance, restricting him from getting a job in industry). It's the same case as hackers sentenced for years away from computers. [1] http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believ...
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    >It's the same case as hackers sentenced for years away from computers. Which always was, and remains, complete nonsense. If someone steals a car, you don't prohibit them from driving their own car to work after they return to society. The analogy the proponents of this nonsense will present is that it's more like lawyers being disbarred or bankers being prohibited from working in the financial industry. But that analogy fails, because prohibiting you from using a computer is not the analog of prohibiting you from being a lawyer or a banker, it's the analog of denying access to the court system or the ability to use money.

freehunter 13y ago

See that's not the same though, unless the garage directly led to making the crime possible. Change a few words and see if it still makes sense: what if the person used their life for criminal purposes? If they get out of prison do you still allow them to have life? A garage is a place, not a tool.

MindTwister 13y ago
What about changing it then... If I build a detonator using a soldering iron and spare parts from a radio, should I be banned from ever owning a soldering iron... or a radio
- ansgri 13y ago
  The main difference is in the scale: you can't solder a thousand detonators before the police notices you. With a fast printing technology, you can.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    Your argument goes the other way. If someone with a printer can do the malicious thing quickly then prohibiting ownership of the printer is useless, because someone prohibited from owning it could just borrow one from someone not so prohibited for a very short period of time, do the crime, and return it without being detected. You might as well just prohibit the act of making detonators, because you'll never catch one without the other. Prohibiting ownership of the printers will just prevent those trying to reform themselves from using their skill in using printers to make legitimate things that benefit society.
hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
It's exactly the same thing. What defines a crime is intention. For instance, firing a gun is not a crime per se. Or in the case of the United States, even building one isn't illegal, since no one made a law to make it so. [1] On the other hand, attempt to shoot, shooting or killing someone, are all possibly crimes, depending if there's intention and the circumstances (e.g., self-defense). So in your example, if someone makes materials for political enemies, first you need to prove intention or connection to the crimes committed by these parties (I'm assuming you don't mean illegal/controlled materials here). Then, when this person is sentenced, the judge can rule about restricting access to these materials anymore (for instance, restricting him from getting a job in industry). It's the same case as hackers sentenced for years away from computers. [1] http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believ...
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  >It's the same case as hackers sentenced for years away from computers. Which always was, and remains, complete nonsense. If someone steals a car, you don't prohibit them from driving their own car to work after they return to society. The analogy the proponents of this nonsense will present is that it's more like lawyers being disbarred or bankers being prohibited from working in the financial industry. But that analogy fails, because prohibiting you from using a computer is not the analog of prohibiting you from being a lawyer or a banker, it's the analog of denying access to the court system or the ability to use money.