Moral Crimes ??

[Atheist-Lite]

Is there a case for moral crimes outside of a patently criminal state? Sometimes the law is a ass and people are tempted to kick it in the butt, so are there times? I'm talking about stealing, perjury, pick-pocketing, burglarly or robbery even. Not just crimes in high finance.

[Hermit]

Crimes against good taste should be criminalised.

[Bella Fortuna]

Mine eyes!

[Pappa]

Crimes against good taste should be criminalised.

Crimes against crimes.

[Atheist-Lite]

Too much convention leads to OCD. There are too many 'squares' in this day and age. I guess that is why I posted this?

[Brian Peacock]

Crimes against good taste should be criminalised.

Crimes against crimes.

Anything that is prohibited in law is a crime. Also, anything which is not specifically permitted by the law may be seen as a crime to all intents and purposes - setting legal presidents in this way gives the law flexibility. Therefore moral arguments for this-or-that have to be made on a case by case basis aside from the law where (hopefully) the acts to support the morally good and to discourage the morally bad. Those defined as terrorists under the law may claim to be acting to reduce suffering and promote freedoms which are denied them, making attacks against their oppressors morally justifiable in their eyes, for example. In fact, most terrorists organisations assert the moral primacy of their position - it's par for the course even when terrorist organisations are functionally indistinguishable from organised criminal gangs.

Examples of moral inconsistency in the law abound. Legal proscriptions against certain intoxicating compounds seem wholly morally inconsistent in a setting where the consumption of some quite powerful and addictive compounds is permitted while the consumption of less powerful, less harmful compounds are not - specifically when the moral justification for prohibiting a compound in law is asserted on the basis of the harm these compounds cause to individual and/or society.

[Hermit]

anything which is not specifically permitted by the law may be seen as a crime to all intents and purposes - setting legal presidents in this way gives the law flexibility.

Precedents.

They are actually also used to win cases for the defendant. More importantly, many cases are thrown out of court precisely because an action alleged by the prosecution to be criminal has not been specifically proscribed by the law that has been invoked.

[Brian Peacock]

anything which is not specifically permitted by the law may be seen as a crime to all intents and purposes - setting legal presidents in this way gives the law flexibility.

Precedents.

They are actually also used to win cases for the defendant. More importantly, many cases are thrown out of court precisely because an action alleged by the prosecution to be criminal has not been specifically proscribed by the law that has been invoked.

Yes. Yes and yes. Flexibility, as I said. I just wanted to define crime for the purposes of my comments, and thought I should at least mention that even when no specific law against this-or-that exists it could still be treated as a crime for all intents and purposes. The process of law by presidents is quite a robust way for the law to respond to changes in circumstances, new information, and the fluctuations of the prevailing moral outlook.

[HomerJay]

Crimes against good taste should be criminalised.

Crimes against crimes.

Anything that is prohibited in law is a crime.

Not necessarily, parking fines are not criminal offences, neither are civil torts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Crimes against good taste should be criminalised.

Dubya?

[Svartalf]

Crimes against good taste should be criminalised.

Crimes against crimes.

Anything that is prohibited in law is a crime.

Not necessarily, parking fines are not criminal offences, neither are civil torts.

Depends how you view it... fines are for criminal offences, sure, petty ones, not felonies, or even misdemeanors, but crimes nonetheless, as the states takes it on themelves to repress such behavior and punish the culprits, treating it for all practical purposes like crimes..

As for civil torts... that's a question of legal doctrine. They are not dealt with by criminal courts, as in those cases it's a dispute between private parties rather than a state prosecution, but old common knowledge had it that your responsibility was engaged for acts where you were at fault, French parlance even used the term "civil crimes" (délit civil) to describe them, meaning that you were guilty of causing tortious damages and had to pay for it.
The notion of guiltless responsibility is relatively recent.

[Svartalf]

Crimes against good taste should be criminalised.

Dubya?

You tasted him?

[Atheist-Lite]

I might have called this WEIRD crimes but this does not sum up the wrongness of the times in a complete way. Trying to get a precise idea of what I meant would require some effort in recollection, so I will consider it a divergent title and allow you to bring whatever baggage you wish on board the lifeboat question here?

[Brian Peacock]

Crimes against good taste should be criminalised.

Crimes against crimes.

Anything that is prohibited in law is a crime.

Not necessarily, parking fines are not criminal offences, neither are civil torts.

OK. I should have been clearer. Anything that the law defines as criminal is by definition a crime. Parking fines reflect legally enforceable judgements and are accrued when it is shown that the relevant law or local prohibition has not been obeyed. I didn't want to write a lengthy qualification to presage my general point, which still stands I think.

[Tyrannical]

Anyone want to define "moral"?

I generally use God as the standard, what God loves is moral, and what God abhors is immoral.