6 ms·
While in both scenarios a crime is technically committed (I would guess something like "using a computer with the intent of accessing/distributing child pornogr
by kinghajj 13y ago
While in both scenarios a crime is technically committed (I would guess something like "using a computer with the intent of accessing/distributing child pornography,") can't you appreciate how it bothers some to think that one could be convicted without any victim? Lets use a computer analogy: what if I put up a server running running an SSH-like service that would present a false shell and allow commands to be entered, and even give reasonable-yet-bogus responses, and I put up the username/password information on a pastebin and post it everywhere. Should anyone who connects to it and attempts to run "rm -rf /" be convicted of a crime for intended to destroy computer data, even when their action actually has no effect?
- joosters 13y agoCrime is a combination of intentions, actions and results. Just because no-one is harmed doesn't mean there's no crime. If I try and murder someone and fail (perhaps I'm a poor shot?) then I'm hardly an innocent. I'd recommend the webcomic 'The illustrated guide to law' to everyone, especially many of the commentators on here. It is disturbing to read some of these posts. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173
- tptacek 13y agoSeconding this recommendation; the whole series is lengthy and consistently pretty great.
- kinghajj 13y agoI know there is a crime committed here, my first line was "While in both scenarios a crime is technically committed..." And of course I don't question the general case that attempting to commit crimes should itself be a crime, I was merely pointing out that applying that reasoning can sometimes lead to questionably-just outcomes.